The New York Times backtracks on misquotation in Andrew Cuomo diversity remarks coverage

The New York Times has corrected its reporting on comments made by former New York Governor Andrew Cuomo during an MSNBC interview, amending a key quotation that had inaccurately attributed the word “unequivocally” to him. The correction clarifies that while Cuomo did express full condemnation of Islamophobic remarks directed at his opponent Zohran Mamdani, he did not use the word “unequivocally” himself.

In the article originally published on November 1, the Times quoted Cuomo as saying he “unequivocally” condemned Islamophobia in the New York mayoral race. The updated version now reflects that the term was introduced by the host in a question, and that Cuomo responded simply, “100 percent.” This misquotation had created a misleading impression of Cuomo’s phrasing and tone at a moment of heightened political sensitivity.

Such an error matters because the interview sits at the intersection of religion, race, and campaign politics in a deeply polarized city. In a contest where accusations of Islamophobia have already charged the atmosphere, precision in quoting candidates is essential. Misstating a response, even subtly, risks distorting the perceived strength or sincerity of a candidate’s stance on prejudice.

The Times’ misquote also illustrates a broader issue in contemporary political journalism: the tendency for linguistic embellishment to slip into transcription. Words like “unequivocally” carry weight in shaping perceptions of conviction, and inserting them can alter how readers judge a politician’s resolve or defensiveness. With Cuomo’s remarks already under scrutiny for referring to diversity as both a “strength” and a “weakness,” accuracy was vital to avoid inflaming existing narratives about intolerance or pandering.

In an environment where misinformation routinely spreads through partisan echo chambers, such small textual distortions can have disproportionate impact. By overstating Cuomo’s language, the paper risked implying a rehearsed or defensive posture rather than the spontaneous tone evident in the broadcast. For an outlet of record, the correction underscores the necessity of disciplined verification, particularly when reporting on topics that cut across identity, ideology, and electoral strategy.