How Broadcast Media Covered Zohran Mamdani's Win

A new analysis of over 25,000 broadcast mentions shows how mainstream media led with Israel over rent, child care, and transit.

[Report produced by vaibhav vijay and Waleed Shahid at The Bloc]

In the week following Zohran Mamdani’s decisive victory in the 2025 New York City Democratic mayoral primary, broadcast media coverage both nationally and locally converged around a single dominant theme: Mamdani’s purported views on Israel and allegations of antisemitism. A review of more than 25,000 broadcast mentions—19,600 national and 2,730 local—reveals a media landscape more preoccupied with a single narrative than with the everyday realities facing New Yorkers.

Nearly 60% of national broadcast mentions of Zohran Mamdani centered on Israel or antisemitism, eclipsing nearly every aspect of his actual platform. Core issues like housing affordability, public transit, childcare, and food access—the very pillars of why New York Democratic voters chose to nominate him—were pushed to the sidelines. When Mamdani’s policy agenda was acknowledged, it was often treated with skepticism or reduced to ideological branding, rather than engaged as a serious response to New Yorkers’ material needs.

Methodology

This analysis examines television broadcast media coverage of Zohran Mamdani during the seven-day window following his victory in the June 24, 2025 Democratic primary for New York City mayor. The dataset consists of all national and New York-based local broadcast mentions of “Mamdani” collected between June 24 and June 30 via Meltwater, a media analysis platform that compiles transcripts from major news networks. Mentions include headline summaries, segment transcripts, and in-show dialogue across morning, evening, and primetime programming.

Mentions were categorized using a keyword-based tagging method aligned with six distinct themes:

1. Israel/Antisemitism – Mentions including terms such as “Israel,” “Israeli,” “Gaza,” “Hamas,” “Jewish,” “antisemitism,” “antisemitic,” and “Intifada.”

2. Islamophobia – Mentions including “Islamophobia,” “Islamophobic,” or clear references to Mamdani’s religion or national origin in a prejudicial or suspect framing.

3. Housing – Mentions of “housing,” “rent,” “tenant,” “evictions,” or references to public housing programs such as NYCHA.

4. Groceries – Mentions of “groceries,” “grocery,” “food prices,” “food access,” or city-run grocery proposals.

5. Childcare – Mentions of “childcare,” “child care,” or “early childhood education.”

6. Transit – Mentions of “transit,” “bus,” “buses,” “subway,” “subways,” or “fare-free.”

Mentions were manually reviewed and tagged based on primary framing. Mentions that included multiple categories were coded according to the most dominant theme in the context of the sentence or segment (e.g., a mention of rent within a longer discussion on foreign policy would be classified as Israel/Antisemitism). Duplicate headlines across affiliates were deduplicated where applicable.

In total, 19,600 national broadcast mentions and 2,730 local New York broadcast mentions were analyzed. These mentions were then cross-tabulated against their thematic tags to generate frequency counts and share-of-coverage estimates for each category.

Limitations of this analysis include the exclusive focus on broadcast media (excluding cable web platforms, print, or social media), and the reliance on keyword-triggered matches, which may undercount more veiled or dog-whistle framings. Nonetheless, this method captures the dominant contours of elite media coverage and allows for clear quantitative comparison across issues voters actually cited—like housing and transit—versus the narratives that dominated national discourse.

Three Patterns that Defined Mamdani Coverage

1. The Israel/Antisemitism Frame
A striking 59% of national broadcast segments—and nearly half of local coverage—centered on Mamdani’s statements about Israel or antisemitism. Often these segments conflated critiques of U.S.-Israeli policy with antisemitism, rarely providing context or detail.

• Fox News (June 25): “You’ve got Hamas sympathizers winning in NYC, and the media’s silent about it.”

• CNN (June 26): “Mamdani’s prior statements about Israeli airstrikes are under new scrutiny.”

• NBC4 New York (June 28): “Jewish groups voice alarm about the Democratic nominee’s past comments about Gaza.”

2. Affordability Dismissed as Radicalism
Although housing, transit, and grocery affordability defined Mamdani’s platform and voter appeal, coverage treated these as controversial or ideological rather than pragmatic or responsive to voter concerns.

• NY1’s Inside City Hall (June 27): Mamdani highlights investments in transit, housing, childcare; the segment swiftly pivots to pundits characterizing these policies as politically risky or "radical."

• CBS2 (June 29): City-run groceries presented briefly before being dismissed as "socialist overreach."

3. Strategic Islamophobia: Quietly Marginalizing Through “Otherness”
While explicit references to “Islamophobia” appeared in only about 1% of coverage, the impact was outsized. Segments often relied on coded language and insinuation to cast Mamdani’s religion and immigrant background as sources of concern—amplifying a narrative of foreignness without directly naming it.

• Newsmax (June 26): “What does it say about our politics that a man with...foreign sympathies is the face of Democrats in New York?”

• WABC (June 29): “It’s not racist to ask about someone who has family ties to countries hostile to our values.”

The Disconnect: Media vs. Voters’ Priorities

The analysis revealed a major disjunction: voters overwhelmingly emphasized cost-of-living concerns, yet media pivoted repeatedly to foreign-policy controversies:

• PIX11 (June 29): Voter says Mamdani was the only candidate addressing soaring rents; the coverage quickly shifts to Israel.

• ABC7 (June 30): Mamdani’s economic platform given fleeting airtime before the anchor pivots back to accusations of antisemitism.

In short, media priorities diverged sharply from the voters’, elevating Israel over other issues.

Key Facts: Network Analysis (June 24–30, 2025)

National Networks

CNN
CNN referenced Mamdani 84 times during this period, with 64% (54 segments) explicitly focusing on Israel, Gaza, Hamas, Jewish identity, or antisemitism. By contrast, only about 39% of segments mentioned housing-related issues (e.g., rent, housing, tenants), and transit concerns (MTA, subways, buses) were covered even less, appearing in just 14% of mentions.

• Israel-related (e.g., Israel, Gaza, antisemitism): 54 mentions → 64.3%

• Housing-related (e.g., rent, evictions, NYCHA): 33 mentions → 39.3%

• Groceries: 21 mentions → 25.0%

• Transit (e.g., subway, fare-free buses): 12 mentions → 14.3%

• Childcare (e.g., early childhood education): 13 mentions → 15.5%

MSNBC
MSNBC mentioned Mamdani 87 times during this period, with 62% of those segments focused on Israel or antisemitism—making it the dominant frame. By contrast, housing and rent issues, central to Mamdani’s campaign, appeared in 54% of coverage.

• Israel-related: 54 mentions → 62.1%

• Housing-related: 47 mentions → 54.0%

• Groceries: 26 mentions → 29.9%

• Transit: 14 mentions → 16.1%

• Childcare: 34 mentions → 39.1%

Fox News
Fox News provided the highest overall coverage, mentioning Mamdani 154 times, with 64% explicitly highlighting Israel or antisemitism-related controversies. Housing and rent issues were present in just over half of the segments (51%). Transit-related references appeared in approximately 37% of segments.

• Israel-related: 98 mentions → 63.6%

• Housing-related: 79 mentions → 51.3%

• Groceries: 73 mentions → 47.4%

• Transit: 57 mentions → 37.0%

• Childcare: 39 mentions → 25.3%

Local New York Broadcast Affiliates

Local coverage patterns largely mirrored national trends but varied by station:

• WABC (ABC) led in total mentions referencing Israel and antisemitism (40% of their coverage). Transit featured prominently, appearing in nearly 60% of segments, though mentions of housing or rent issues were lower (21%).

• WCBS (CBS) had slightly lower coverage of Israel and antisemitism (36%) but emphasized transit heavily (75%). Housing and rent affordability appeared in about a third (32%) of their segments.

• WNBC (NBC) segments referenced Israel or antisemitism in 42% of coverage. Transit-related issues were mentioned frequently (59%), though housing concerns were notably less prominent (24%).

• WNYW (FOX) featured Israel or antisemitism in 43% of mentions. Transit and housing issues appeared roughly equally (42% and 41%, respectively).

• NY1 had a lower overall rate (32%) of coverage focused on Israel and antisemitism. Transit issues appeared in half (51%) of NY1 segments, while rent and housing references appeared in approximately 27%.

• Radio stations WABC-AM and WNYC (FM+AM) each had the highest frequency of antisemitism or Israel-related references, totaling 156 mentions each, followed by WOR 710 AM (98 mentions), NY1 News (89 mentions), and WINS-AM (73 mentions).

Across the board, local affiliates largely reflected national media’s prioritization of symbolic and ideological controversies, frequently marginalizing Mamdani’s substantive local policy issues.

Conclusion: A Familiar Media Blind Spot

Zohran Mamdani’s primary victory underscores a familiar pattern in political media: progressive, immigrant, and Arab or Muslim candidates are often framed less by their policy agendas than by ideological controversies—especially those related to foreign policy. Although Mamdani campaigned on rent relief, transit access, childcare, and grocery affordability, coverage largely centered on Israel and antisemitism, sidelining the issues that defined both his platform and his appeal to voters.

This misalignment may have real world consequences. In the days following the election, Muslim advocacy groups recorded 127 hate-related threats linked to Mamdani, alongside thousands of Islamophobic online mentions. By prioritizing symbolic conflict over local substance, the media not only distorted the meaning of Mamdani’s win but risked deepening polarization and undermining public understanding of the race itself.