I recently wrote that I have almost stopped reading the Boston Globe editorial pages because they are so biased, and my main focus is on their news articles, where they often (but not always) break the rules of journalism by publishing biased news. But after doing an Editorial Review just the other day, I happened to read the Globe’s lead editorial today and must respond again.
Here is how the editorial starts:
Last year, the fight to protect abortion rights in this state seemed a bit theoretical. After all, this is Massachusetts, right? What more needs to be said?
But with the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg and the likelihood of her replacement by a far more conservative justice, the threat to abortion rights is serious. (emphases mine).
In regards to abortion, the Globe purposely conflates the potential overturn of Roe v Wade nationally with what would happen in Massachusetts, which is apparently nothing.
In other words, if Roe v Wade is no longer the federal law, the state law protecting abortion rights in Massachusetts would still apply. Here is the proof for anyone interested: https://reproductiverights.org/what-if-roe-fell
Yet the Globe obscures this fact in its editorial, arguing that a law that would greatly expand abortion rights should be immediately passed because of Trump’s Supreme Court pick. This is simply untrue.
Instead, the proposed law would allow abortions after 24 weeks and would also eliminate parental notification or a judge’s assent for minors, which are two major changes to the current law.
Personally, I happen to be pro-choice because I believe in the supremacy of individual liberty. But minors need to have parental involvement (or a judge’s permission) because they are not yet adults. And abortions when the fetus could survive on its own is just too close to killing a baby to make me comfortable with it. There is a balancing act between individual liberty and the rights of the unborn.
The Globe is obviously pro-choice, and that is it’s editorial prerogative. But their journalistic duty is to use true facts to support their editorializing, not facts they make up or obscure to fool people into thinking that Massachusetts residents would no longer have access to abortion if President Trump is successful in seating a new Justice on the Supreme Court to replace Ruth Bader Ginsburg.
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/939074076617736
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*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!