This article is pretty normal for the mainstream media. Trump is portrayed as a divisive figure: he is a self-promoter; he is stoking anger and racism by not speaking against it, even when he speaks against it; he is polarizing. Even when the nation is upset over mass shootings, now isn’t the time for the media to bring people together. Never waste an opportunity to help your allies, I guess.
My comment today is mostly about the second photo, of the protest in Ohio. The photo caption says the protesters are upset over Trump’s visit.
This definitely is part of the media narrative. Even though Trump is the president, he “isn’t welcome” to visit parts of the country where some people disagree with him. The Globe, in fact, ran a front-page photo of someone holding a sign in El Paso saying “Pres Trump not welcome here.” Note that if a white protester held a similar sign about President Obama in 2010 or 2015, he would be labeled a racist. But when an Hispanic man holds a sign about Trump, he is just a noble protester exercising his rights.
(Of course, El Paso is Trump’s fault because the shooter used similar language in parts of his manifesto about illegal immigration. But the shooting in Ohio isn’t Elizabeth Warren’s fault when the shooter professed his support for the socialist contender.)
But besides the double standard, let’s look at the other narrative, which is that anyone who attends a rally is protesting Trump’s visit. I don’t think that is true. When the president is performing his duties by visiting places in crisis, people should welcome his attendance, even if they disagree with him politically. And if they do so disagree, come and hold signs. Protest away. That is an American right.
But the protesters, at least as shown in the photo, are not against his visit. They are lobbying him. They disagree with his policies and they are trying to show him that there are other options. “Stand up to the NRA,” “Do something”, “we can end gun violence,” etc., were some of the messages visible in the photo.
Now I don’t think the photo caption is a typo, but it could have said they are “protesting during a visit” by President Trump, not “protesting a visit.”
I am a bit perplexed by this curious attack, that Trump “is not welcome” to visit anywhere in the United States. They employed this technique when talking recently about Baltimore. Even though Elijah Cummings invited Trump, would he be welcome to go? And if he goes to any Liberal stronghold, will he be welcomed? It almost seems like the media is trying to not just divide the voters into two, but to divide the country into two. We have Trump country where he can go, and we have non-Trump country where he can’t. My guess is that when you have an accused White Supremacist as the President, it is okay for ordinary Americans to try to prevent his visit by saying he isn’t welcome. Maybe it is an extension of the “no place for hate” campaign or the “black lives matter” campaign. If you aren’t a supporter, you are not welcomed.
It also reminds me of the other recent attempt to try to tie Trump’s words to White Supremacy, like his calling the millions of illegal immigrants an “invasion.” If you call the illegal migration what it is, you are using racist language and that’s more evidence of being a racist. Only soldiers can invade a country, a recent Globe article argued. So if Republicans use certain words in political debate, they won’t be “welcomed” to go to certain places where people disagree.
Maybe this is also part of the Liberal strategy of confronting politicians they disagree with at their homes, at restaurants, wherever they are. If you disagree with Liberal orthodoxy, you aren’t welcome to eat out, go on vacation, mow your lawn, play in a baseball game, etc.
This seems like a dangerous path to go down, but it is a path being trodden by our media. They are promoting this activity and apparently support it.
*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!