The New York Times has a rule for professional titles, and it appears to depend on party registration. According to reporting from The Federalist, the paper identified Michigan gubernatorial candidate Abdul El-Sayed as a doctor while using the lawyer designation of Katie Zacharia as a smear opportunity rather than a credential.
The comparison, first detailed by The Federalist, centers on how the Times framed the two professionals. El-Sayed, a former Detroit health department director, was presented with his professional title intact. Zacharia, a lawyer, saw her designation turned into a weapon for the paper's news coverage.
El-Sayed is identified by the Federalist as having been a doctor. Zacharia, a lawyer, is described as having had her professional designation used as a smear in the Times' coverage.
Neither the full text of the Times coverage nor the specific language used against Zacharia was detailed in the Federalist's account. What the Federalist's reporting establishes is the asymmetry: one professional title honored, another weaponized.
The Times has faced repeated criticism from conservatives over what they describe as selective framing of political figures. The Federalist's report adds a specific, documented example to that complaint: two professionals, two treatments, no explanation offered for the difference.
Readers can review the Federalist's reporting directly for the full comparison of the Times' language.
Our Take
This is the legacy media playbook, and it is not subtle. The Times knows exactly what it is doing when it decides which professional titles to honor and which to deploy as a smear. El-Sayed gets his credential respected; Zacharia gets hers used as a cudgel. That is not journalism, it is a partisan litmus test dressed up as editorial judgment.
Patriots have watched this double standard for years. The paper that spent a decade lecturing America about objectivity is now openly sorting professionals by political tribe. If you are on the Left, your degree is a badge of authority. If you are on the Right, it is a target.
The Federalist caught them doing it in print. The question now is whether the Times will explain the discrepancy or simply pretend it did not happen, the way it always does.
