A woman can beat Trump, just not that woman

A woman can beat Trump, just not that woman

PE Bias Grade : C+

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 9, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Warren still facing questions about a woman beating Trump
Date 02/07/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Victoria McGrane
Article Summary

Sen. Warren and the Globe continues to raise the gender issue.

Share This Story

[Warren Report 38-2020]

The Boston Globe’s Warren Report is back, just in time for the New Hampshire primary next week, and I am ready to predict the Globe will be doing their Warren endorsement this Sunday. This is based on the “now or never” doctrine. I don’t know that Warren will remain viable after New Hampshire votes unless she is in the top two, so the Globe better get crackin’.

This Warren Report reprises the “gender” argument, urging readers to vote for Warren because she is a woman. As do most Warren articles, it features a series of quotes from supporters, all of whom have decided that Warren is the one. Several of them indicate that her gender is a motivating factor.

So let me understand this. If you vote FOR Warren because she is a female, that is justified, but if you vote AGAINST Warren because she is a female, you are a misogynist, sexist pig. Maybe this is how Democrats justify identity politics. It can only help people, never hurt them. Makes sense to me.

Using that reasoning, Democrats should never admit they are not voting for Warren because of her gender, but instead just speak in glowing, supportive terms about the gender of their favorite male candidate. If it is okay to support a woman because of gender, the same must be true of a man.

“I love Mayor Pete not just because he has served in the military and is so handsome, but also because of his masculinity. It sure doesn’t hurt!” said one homosexual activist. “I have nothing against a woman running for president, I just love Mayor Pete!”

“I love Bernie not just because of his stance on issues and his authenticity, but his disheveled look is just sexy,” said one woman of indeterminate age, wearing a Bernie tee-shirt. “I have no problem with supporting a woman, just not THAT woman.”

“Joe Biden reminds me of my grandfather, who suffered from narcolepsy,” said one twenty-something with a Biden pin on her blouse. “Too bad Bernie isn’t female, then I’d have a woman I could actually support.”

“I was debating between the two best progressive candidates, Bernie and Elizabeth, but I decided to support Bernie because we need a man in the White House, no disrespect to Elizabeth,” said one Millennial at the Bernie rally. “After we’ve had 50 or 60 men in a row, then maybe we could have one token female president.”

If voting for a woman because of gender is acceptable, and this article quotes some such supporters, then why isn’t voting for a man as well? Conversely, can someone not support a man because of gender, and if so, can the same argument be made for a woman?

This is reminiscent of people saying that President Obama couldn’t be elected because of secret racism. Yet he persisted. Seems like the problem this time is with the candidate, not her gender. The reporter quickly skates over Warren’s false Indian claims and her DNA test, saying she got past those issues. That’s of course not true. They just aren’t being made an issue during the Democratic primary because the voters want to support whoever the nominee is. So Warren’s past falsehoods are not an issue now, but if she ever were to make it to the general election, you can be sure they would be.

So it makes me wonder if this isn’t just a big excuse for when Warren drops out. Her loss will not be because of her poor campaign, her radical Left policies, her abrasiveness, her condescension, or her lies, it will be because of her gender. So Warren’s loss will help cement the narrative that America is a racist, homophobic, sexist, and xenophobic society that must be fundamentally transformed into a socialist paradise where everyone is equal. Equally poor and miserable, that is.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. He critiques the Boston Globe, mostly focusing on the bias in their news reporting. News articles are graded for bias, and the website has a listing of the average bias ratings for all reporters reviewed. See our website for more information and the four categories of articles we publish.

NOTE: We have been very active on our Facebook page for Public Editor Press. The page is getting lots of hits and comments, which have been very helpful. I urge readers to go there if you wish to participate or read reactions from others. You will need to “login” to Facebook to post your own comments but you can probably read them without a Facebook account. Here is the direct link to this article’s Facebook page: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/777687339423078

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/


Author Rating

Rating: 5.0/10.


There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: Warren still facing questions about a woman beating Trump

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

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!

Leave A Comment


Rating: 5.0/10.