Bill de Blasio Slams The Times for Publishing Fake Interview Before NYC Election

When The Times of London published a story claiming that Bill de Blasio had turned on Zohran Mamdani, it seemed like a classic case of establishment press framing a progressive as unrealistic. Within hours, the story collapsed. The former New York mayor took to X, declaring the article “entirely false and fabricated.” The paper deleted the story and later admitted that its reporter had been duped by an impersonator pretending to be de Blasio. For a publication once regarded as Britain’s paper of record, the blunder marks another low point in the Murdoch empire’s decline.

The false story was published on October 28, 2025, just days before New York City’s mayoral election, where Mamdani is the clear front-runner. The Times quoted fabricated remarks that mocked Mamdani’s campaign math and called his plans “politically unachievable.” In reality, de Blasio is one of Mamdani’s most vocal supporters, describing his vision as “necessary and achievable.” The incident has revived a larger conversation about how Murdoch-owned outlets have traded integrity for influence.

The Fake Interview That Never Happened

The story was up for barely two hours before vanishing from The Times’ website. A full-page error replaced it, as screenshots of the article spread across social media. According to The Times’ later statement, the reporter had been “misled by an individual falsely claiming to be the former New York mayor.” The name of that reporter, Bevan Hurley, quickly circulated online, sparking fierce backlash from journalists and readers who called the incident “journalistic malpractice.”

Bill de Blasio’s reaction was swift and unequivocal. “Those quotes aren’t mine, don’t reflect my views,” he wrote, demanding the paper retract the story immediately. “It is an absolute violation of journalistic ethics.” His posts garnered over a million views within hours. The outrage was not only about the fabrication but about what it revealed—a paper willing to publish politically charged quotes without any verification.

I want to be 100% clear:
The story in the Times of London is entirely false and fabricated.
It was just brought to my attention and I’m appalled.
I never spoke to that reporter and never said those things.
Those quotes aren’t mine, don’t reflect my views. https://t.co/I65e8UV6tm

— Bill de Blasio (@BilldeBlasio) October 28, 2025

On X, prominent writers called it “horrendous reputational damage” for Britain’s so-called paper of record. Others described it as “imperial sleaze,” a scandal that underlines the Murdoch network’s pattern of disinformation at critical political moments.

A Pattern of Falsehoods and Quiet Retractions

This is not the first time The Times has published and quietly erased false claims. Only a week earlier, The Times deleted a false report accusing Labour candidate Torsten Bell of spending £900 on a desk, a claim he swiftly debunked before the Mail and Telegraph followed with their own quiet retractions. That story appeared across the Daily Mail and Telegraph before being pulled after Bell proved it was false. The Times offered no public correction, only a silent deletion.

These recurring fabrications reflect not a fall from grace but the continuation of a long pattern within Murdoch’s outlets. Far from models of integrity, they have long traded accuracy for agenda, preferring speed, spectacle, and political convenience over truth. As critics have pointed out, the same outlets that are easily duped by impostors have built entire cottage industries around vilifying Prince Harry and Meghan Sussex, with no evidence required. When British tabloids run unverified stories about Meghan, the public accepts them at face value. When proven false, retractions are buried, if issued at all.

The hypocrisy is glaring. Falsehoods targeting progressives or figures like the Sussexes gain instant traction; corrections vanish into silence.

Why This Matters for Journalism and Democracy

The Mamdani hoax was more than an embarrassment, it was a warning. It exposed how a major British newspaper could become a conduit for election interference in another country. The Times’ misstep wasn’t just sloppy; it was systemic. A newsroom that operates without verification can no longer claim authority, and a media empire that normalizes fabrication corrodes public trust.

De Blasio’s swift defense of Mamdani may have limited the political fallout, but the damage to The Times’ credibility will linger. The scandal underscores a dangerous truth: when powerful outlets abandon truth for agenda, they not only misinform, they mislead democracy itself.