The NYT Applies Double Standards on Professional Credentials, Favoring Democrats and Scrutinizing Republicans
Source: Brianna Lyman. "NYT Will Only Acknowledge Your Degree If You're A Democrat." October 16, 2026. thefederalist.com
The Gist
The author says the New York Times digs into Republicans' professional titles to make them look bad, but gives Democrats a pass or even praises their degrees. She points to how it handled Trump's press secretary, Ben Carson, a Democratic Senate candidate, and Jill Biden as proof of a partisan double standard.
Conclusion
The New York Times treats professional and academic credentials inconsistently along partisan lines, validating and bolstering the credentials of Democrats (El-Sayed, Jill Biden) while scrutinizing and downplaying those of Republicans (Zacharia, Carson).
Premises
- The Times investigated whether Katie Zacharia, a Trump press secretary, held a law license after she called herself a lawyer, and publicized that it could not find one, even though she graduated from law school.
- The Times did not apply the same scrutiny to Abdul El-Sayed, a Democratic Senate candidate who calls himself a physician but has never practiced medicine, and continued to call him 'Dr.' while noting he held a medical degree.
- The Times covered Ben Carson, a longtime neurosurgeon, as 'Mr.' or 'Ben Carson' in its campaign coverage and cast doubt on his accomplishments in a separate profile, while giving El-Sayed a glowing profile that highlighted his degrees.
- The Times defended Jill Biden's use of 'Dr.' for her education doctorate, framing criticism as sexist and quoting an academic who said anyone with a doctorate should call themselves a doctor.
- Across these cases, Times writers present Democrats' academic accomplishments as accomplishments, but scrutinize and downplay the same kinds of accomplishments when Republicans hold them.
Assumptions
- The four cases are comparable enough (self-designation of lawyer vs. physician vs. doctor of education vs. practicing surgeon) that differing treatment indicates bias rather than legitimate editorial differences.
- The cases cited are representative of the Times' broader pattern rather than cherry-picked.
- Differences in treatment are caused by the subjects' partisan affiliation, not by other factors such as the specific controversies, newsworthiness, or the claims made.
- Different reporters, editors, and sections (news, profiles, culture) across years can be treated as a single institutional 'Times' with a unified bias.
- Scrutinizing a title claim is a form of smearing when applied to Republicans, and the lack of such scrutiny of Democrats constitutes favoritism.
- Calling a medical degree holder 'Dr.' is equivalent to endorsing a claim of being a practicing physician.