When Zohran Mamdani won the mayoralty of New York City, becoming the city’s first Muslim mayor-elect, the first South Asian descent mayor-elect, and its youngest in more than a century, many across the city saw hope for a new direction.
That’s why the Post’s front page the next day struck me so sharply: a large illustration of Mamdani in red, holding a hammer and sickle, under the headline “THE RED APPLE” and the sub-line “On your Marx, get set, Zo! Socialist Mamdani wins the race for mayor.”
It’s more than just eye-catching; it’s deeply problematic.
Why It’s Wrong
1. It distorts what Mamdani stands for.
Mamdani describes himself as a “democratic socialist.” His campaign wasn’t about resurrecting the USSR; it was about leveraging government to address affordability, transit access, rent control, and economic equity. For example, his platform included:
- Free city buses, a rent freeze on rent-stabilised units, and the creation of city-run grocery stores.
- A proposal to raise the minimum wage to $30/hr by 2030 and increase taxes on top earners and corporations.
By using hammer-and-sickle imagery and the term “Red Apple,” the Post flattens that into “communist takeover.” It misleads readers about what he campaigned on and what he represents.
Why “The Red Apple” Isn’t Just a Nickname
At first glance, “The Red Apple” seems harmless, even clever. New York has long been called “The Big Apple,” so swapping “Big” for “Red” feels like simple wordplay. But context changes everything. In this cover, “Red” doesn’t just reference color or New York pride; it’s a political symbol. In American media and Cold War history, “red” has been used to represent communism, radical leftism, and ideological threat (“Red Scare,” “better dead than red,” “the Reds are coming”).
By calling New York “The Red Apple” right next to an image of Zohran Mamdani holding a hammer and sickle, the New York Post wasn’t being playful; it was suggesting that his victory turned New York into a communist city. It’s satire on the surface, but propaganda in effect. The title implies that New York has been “taken over” by socialism, that its identity has been corrupted, and that Mamdani’s leadership marks a dangerous ideological shift.
The problem is that this framing weaponizes a nickname that’s supposed to celebrate New York’s vibrancy and culture. Instead, it twists it into a warning. What should have been a moment of pride, a new, diverse chapter in the city’s history, was turned into an alarm bell for readers conditioned to fear the word “red.”
2. It plays to fear and othering.
New York is a mass-media town. Front pages matter. When your cover dresses an elected mayor in symbols historically used to demonize “the left,” “the foreign,” “the outsider,” you’re amplifying a narrative of threat: “Beware, this city is in the hands of radicals.”
Mamdani is a first-generation immigrant (born in Uganda, moved to the U.S. as a child). New York State Assembly. He identified as a Muslim candidate and has roots in South Asian/Ugandan heritage. Using imagery evocative of foreign ideological threats (hammer & sickle) plays into the “outsider” trope. It sends a silent message: “He doesn’t belong here in the traditional sense.”
This kind of framing has real consequences in how people perceive leaders and their legitimacy.
3. It undermines the legitimacy of a democratic election.
Mamdani won the election fair and square. He garnered 50.4% of the vote in the general election.
But the cover doesn’t treat the outcome as the people’s choice, it treats it as a takeover. By choosing propaganda-style visuals, the Post signals: “Something unnatural has happened.” That erodes respect for the democratic process, which matters deeply in a city like New York.
4. It ignores nuance and meaningful policy conversation.
Instead of engaging with what Mamdani plans to do, why voters supported him, and how he intends to govern, the cover reduces everything to a single image and pun.
For instance, the high cost of housing pushed many to vote for him.
Yet none of that makes the front page. This shortcut denies readers an opportunity to understand the root of his appeal, and instead primes them to fear the outcome.
Why It Matters to You and Me
Because the media shapes our lens. If you walk past a newsstand and see that cover, before reading anything else, you’re primed to see Mamdani as a threat, not simply a mayor-elect with a progressive agenda.
That influences how the public interacts with him, how the city engages politically, and whether his administration starts with legitimacy or suspicion.
And more broadly: when major outlets treat a democratically elected leader with caricature instead of respect, it chips away at our collective civic culture. A robust democracy depends on a press that informs rather than inflames.
What a Better Cover Would’ve Looked Like
Instead of red scare imagery and puns, I’d have loved a front page that said:
“Zohran Mamdani: First Muslim & South Asian Mayor of New York, What He Plans for City’s Housing Crisis”
And maybe a photo of him walking through a Brooklyn street, talking to renters, or visiting a bus stop, something grounded in his platform, not some Cold War-era motif.
That kind of coverage would give readers something worth thinking about: “Here’s how this election happened. Here’s what it might mean. That’s our city’s story.”
Instead, the Post chose “chaos,” “radical,” “other.”
My Take (Because This Is My Voice)
I don’t expect newspapers to cheer for every candidate. Critique and opposition are necessary in politics. But I do expect newspapers to be honest in their framing.
When the story is about a historic election in the country’s largest city, and when the winner’s platform is serious, a front page like this is lazy, and worse, harmful.
It ignores the lived reality of millions of New Yorkers who voted because they are tired of being priced out of their city, and it uses the election not as a signal of change, but as a provocation.
If I were walking through Manhattan, grabbing a coffee, and saw that cover? I wouldn’t feel like I was being invited into a discussion; I’d feel like I’m being warned. That’s not journalistic engagement. That’s fear-advertising.
