> Even Mayor Zohran Mamdani showed up at the shop to help with the Knicks signs.
Well thank goodness that detail was included. I don't think the sign shop that manages 1 million signs could have done the job without him.
But in all seriousness...is it too much to ask the NY Times to have a human interest article about the freaking sign shop without it incorporating partisan politics?
I realize that politicians are going to take photo ops, but you don't have to cover it.
He's the mayor regardless of your feelings on the matter, and the Nicks are the sportsball team for the city he's mayor of. This isn't partisan thing just because he exists and is doing what mayors do. If he tried to gatekeep something for only his party, or ideology then it'd be partisan. But he didn't because it's a NY thing, not a partisan thing. See the difference?
> He's the mayor regardless of your feelings on the matter
...which didn't come into my comment in the slightest? It's stupid no matter who the mayor is.
Your response is indicative of exactly the problem [1]: you're leaping to a partisan conclusion, because I dared to criticize something related to politics. I remember when New Yorkers made fun of crap like this.
[1] to be specific: the reflexive political toxicity that is melting everything into a morass of partisan goo.
Nope. Premise is backwards. Why does the mayor belong in a story about the intricacies of printing road signs? Is the mayor a road sign enthusiast? Did he create the road-sign printing system? No? No relation at all, other than seeing an opportunity to inject himself into a story?
Yeah, maybe don't include it, then.
> showing up as a mascot for a random human interest story is the primary function of a mayor.
That's certainly what politicians try to do. You, as a journalist, are not required to take the bait. Sometimes it's just cool to have a nice little story about the people at the sign factory.
This is very standard and innocuous. This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable. Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of "politics" in a general sense is somehow evil.
It is indeed, sadly, "standard". That doesn't make it good.
> This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable.
It doesn't make me "uncomfortable". I think it's stupid.
> Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of "politics" in a general sense is somehow evil.
Politics are not evil. Including them in everything, when they don't need to be included, is just bad journalism. And by the way...I would say this if the mayor in question was on any side of the ideoligical spectrum. Would you?
Well thank goodness that detail was included. I don't think the sign shop that manages 1 million signs could have done the job without him.
But in all seriousness...is it too much to ask the NY Times to have a human interest article about the freaking sign shop without it incorporating partisan politics?
I realize that politicians are going to take photo ops, but you don't have to cover it.
...which didn't come into my comment in the slightest? It's stupid no matter who the mayor is.
Your response is indicative of exactly the problem [1]: you're leaping to a partisan conclusion, because I dared to criticize something related to politics. I remember when New Yorkers made fun of crap like this.
[1] to be specific: the reflexive political toxicity that is melting everything into a morass of partisan goo.
You're the one who accused it of being partisan.
It would be the same if the paper did a drop-in about Trump.
Nope. Premise is backwards. Why does the mayor belong in a story about the intricacies of printing road signs? Is the mayor a road sign enthusiast? Did he create the road-sign printing system? No? No relation at all, other than seeing an opportunity to inject himself into a story?
Yeah, maybe don't include it, then.
> showing up as a mascot for a random human interest story is the primary function of a mayor.
That's certainly what politicians try to do. You, as a journalist, are not required to take the bait. Sometimes it's just cool to have a nice little story about the people at the sign factory.
https://thekidshouldseethis.com/post/nyc-dot-sign-shop
I wonder if anything has changed with how they make signs since 10 years ago. I can't access the NYT article.
https://unwall.app/www.nytimes.com/2026/08/15/nyregion/nyc-s...
> This instance only stands to you because it makes you uncomfortable.
It doesn't make me "uncomfortable". I think it's stupid.
> Own up to the specific reason for that instead of acting like the existence of "politics" in a general sense is somehow evil.
Politics are not evil. Including them in everything, when they don't need to be included, is just bad journalism. And by the way...I would say this if the mayor in question was on any side of the ideoligical spectrum. Would you?