This is a mildly biased story about the Supreme Court vacancy, written by two New York Times reporters and running in the Boston Globe.
There are small jabs throughout, like saying that a quick confirmation vote so the Supreme Court seat is filled before the election (which could result in litigation, obviously) would be evidence of some sort of abuse, since it would “force through” the nomination. It would seem that if you have the votes, no “force” would be necessary.
The article lays out the apparent hypocrisy of the Republicans in reversing their position. In 2016, when Obama was President but the Senate was controlled by Republicans, Mitch McConnell declined to give a hearing to Obama’s nominee, Merrick Garland. This is obviously within the purview of McConnell’s power, just as Nancy Pelosi refuses to allow a vote on more Coronavirus Relief, even though it would probably pass the House.
McConnell has his reasons, but it does seem like there are two standards. But McConnell isn’t the only one who has reversed his stance: so have all the major Democrats who pushed for a hearing in 2016 only to suggest there be none in 2020. The article fails to mention that hypocrisy infects both parties.
But what really caught my eye was the constant refrain from the media, which is that Trump fails to offer proof for his opinions. For example, he says that mailing millions of ballots, unrequested by voters, will result in fraud and long delays. These are predictions and are opinions, not facts, yet the media will opine that Trump did not provide backup for these scenarios. The most used phrase is “without evidence.” This is code for “he is lying.”
Of course, when Trump does provide facts, the media ignores them. On the voting issue, Trump has often repeated the problems we’ve had in some Congressional races with mail-in voting, yet the media does not investigate or reach any conclusions about whether large swaths of the country should run the vote-by-mail experiment during a contentious presidential election.
And Trump’s predictions have an uncanny accuracy. Some would say he is a genius, and a very stable one at that. Recent court rulings in some swing states have required that state laws requiring ballots to be received by election day have been extended for three or six days. You know this is going to spur litigation as both sides are gearing up for legal battle. So there will be lengthy delays in knowing the final results of the presidential election and maybe even some key Senate races. This alone makes filling the vacancy so we have a full nine-member court the best course of action.
Today’s column offers two new adjectives for Trump’s failure to back up his opinions. Trump offered “absolutely zero evidence” about whether the “dying wish” for Ruth Bader Ginsburg was to wait until January to fill her seat upon her death:
But even as he talked about showing respect for Ginsburg, Trump asserted with absolutely zero evidence that her dying wish that she not be replaced until the next president is chosen, as conveyed by her granddaughter to NPR, was actually scripted by Democrats like House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Schumer or Representative Adam Schiff of California.
So “no evidence” has changed to “absolutely zero evidence.” Well, I guess the biased media needs to change things around because perhaps readers are getting tired of their claims. Might as well spice them up a bit with some hyperbole.
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/938217203370090
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!