President Trump did not “violate” the terms of the agreement with Iran. He upheld them for several months and then withdrew. After he withdrew, he imposed sanctions.
The agreement was not a treaty. It had never been confirmed by the Senate and was essentially a vanity project by the Obama administration to kick the can down the road 10 years. I’m sure Obama was upset he didn’t get another undeserved Nobel prize for this beauty.
Trump campaigned against the agreement and offered to negotiate changes. None of our allies took him seriously and Iran continued its bad behavior despite the obvious and public signals Trump was sending. But I don’t blame Iran. Look at how our previous administrations have dealt with sticky international situations and I’m sure the Iranians were convinced Trump would back down. Every president in the last 20 or 30 years (say since at least Ronald Reagan) has done so. Why would Trump be different?
This story is mostly balanced except for the one offending word, but it is a key word. Trump did not violate any agreement. The situation with Iran, wherever it leads, is the result of a necessary correction of a terrible decision by Obama to choose form over substance.
This key word turns the story from being an unbiased review of the history of the Iran nuclear accord to an article blaming President Trump for all the recent events. Shooting down the US drone, selling oil to Syria, grabbing ships and crews…all of these actions are those of an aggrieved nation which was blindsided by the United States. What else could Iran do but lash out? I’m sure the Washington Post and the Boston Globe doesn’t blame Iran for more highly refining their uranium towards nuclear weapons grade. If the Iranians get the bomb and then use it, it will also be Trump’s fault.
So while today’s article is mostly balanced, it gets a very poor grade on bias from a “national security” point of view. Siding with the murderous Ayatollah against their own country is unacceptable.
The Iranians need only read the Washington Post and New York Times to conclude that the media is supporting their efforts against the United States as personified by President Trump.
*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed
Grading articles for bias is subjective. We hope that with widespread participation, we can give the reporters and editors at the Boston Globe valuable feedback on their professional work. Here are our suggestions for grading news articles for bias. (We do not rate editorial opinion columns for bias. But we do analyze the Boston Globe for overall editorial balance.)
Consider whether the article is completely free of bias (a grade of 10 or A), has been mostly free of bias (8 or 9, A- or B+), has been biased but not terribly or where the bias did not hurt the integrity of the underlying information (7 or 6, B or B-).
If the article was fairly biased overall, but subtle; or where the bias was particularly prominent but isolated to a single section, give the article a 5 or 4 (C+ or C). If the article was very biased but perhaps not intentionally so, perhaps a C- (3) would be deserved.
If the article was extremely prejudiced with major misstatements of fact, intentionally misleading, or ignored well known facts to advance a false narrative, give the article a D or F (2 or 1).
Reviewers must subscribe to Public Editor and agree to our terms of service to participate. Subscriptions are currently free. We recommend that all readers subscribe to the Boston Globe or the newspaper of their choice to support journalism, and to send the Boston Globe your feedback directly. Thank you for participating in Public Editor’s bias rating project!