And here it is…Globe endorses Warren

And here it is…Globe endorses Warren

PE Bias Grade : N/A

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 28, 2020 | Editorial Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title The Globe endorses Elizabeth Warren
Date 02/26/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A10 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist BG Editorial Board
Article Summary

In a surprise, the Boston Globe endorses Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination for President.

Share This Story

[Warren Report #58-2020]

The Boston Globe’s special Warren Report edition features an article at least two years in the making: The official Boston Globe endorsement of Senator Elizabeth Warren for the Democratic nomination.

The Globe also endorsed former Governor William Weld for President in the Republican primary, so this issue could be called the Longshot issue. Or the Hopeless Cause issue. Or the Democrat Futility issue. Or maybe the Wishful Thinking issue. No, I’ve finally got it: the “What Happens When You Smoke Pot For Too Long” issue.

The Globe has been telegraphing their Warren endorsement for a long time, as documented by our Warren Report series on our website. But we predicted the endorsement prior to the New Hampshire primary, thinking that was Warren’s “must win” state. It turns out, her campaign is in much worse shape than anyone but the Globe knew, and the Globe saved its gunpowder to load into their pea-shooter for before the Massachusetts primary on Super Tuesday.

If Massachusetts is Warren’s “firewall,” then she is unofficially done, merely running now to try to get some leverage with any of her delegates to broker a deal with Bernie for a cabinet appointment. Well, every cabinet needs a token “angry woman.”

Or maybe she will try to be a “power broker” like the Kennedys when they went for Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton in 2008. Perhaps Warren will throw her 10 or 20 delegates to Mike Bloomberg in exchange for whatever cash happens to be in his pocket at any given time. She will have no place in a Bloomberg cabinet, not after she savaged him during the last two debates.

The Globe clearly recognizes that Warren isn’t going to win, so they flubbed their chance to overtly help her with their endorsement when it might have mattered. So instead they write today that their endorsement, while considering many factors, is about principles, not about politics. This explanation was put below the endorsement as a “Q&A” about the Globe’s endorsement policy. You can read it at this link: “How and why does the Globe endorse presidential candidates?”

And from this link, this is what we learn about their Warren endorsement choice:

Like many of our readers, we’d like to see a Democratic nominee who can stand a good chance against President Trump in November. But we tried not to predict who would be most likely to win, because we felt that this could be a place where biases could come in — and that it might be too early in the race to determine credibly. That said, it was hard not to consider whether candidates at least had a viable course to win the nomination at this stage of the race, and how they’d motivate different groups of voters.

In the main body of the editorial, we know the Democrats like to say that their political movement is about “fairness.” They are fair, and the Republicans are not fair. Here is their “fairness” yardstick explained:

But one candidate stands out as a leader with the qualifications, track record, and tenacity to defend the principles of democracy, bring fairness to an economy that is excluding too many Americans, and advance a progressive agenda. She would fight the corruption and corporate influence that distort our politics, lift up working families, and combat gun violence and climate change. That candidate is Elizabeth Warren.

Well, it is fair to setup rules and follow them, and not to change the rules after the game has been played. Our economy, the best in the world, is based on fairness and the rule of law. If someone makes money and pays their taxes, and plays by the rules, then we protect that person from confiscation of their wealth by the “mob.” Elizabeth Warren (and Bernie Sanders) are the aging faces of the mob in America. They want to penalize people who have become wealthy by confiscating large chunks of their wealth under the cover of “fairness.” Their proposals are NOT fair.

I understand people won’t cry over a billionaire having some of his or her wealth confiscated. They made it, they can’t possibly be concerned about some two or four percent reduction in their net worth each year. Wouldn’t you like to have such a concern over your billions of dollars?

But confiscating after-tax wealth is not what our country is about. It would fundamentally change the relationship between taxpayers and government. Right now, our system is essentially a voluntary taxation system which is based on people doing the right thing. The odds of being audited by the IRS are very small, and even such audits have some assumption that you are being honest in your reporting. If the general public lost faith in the fairness of our tax system, all hell would break loose. And if the ultra rich lost that faith, same thing, since they pay the majority of the taxes.

So Warren’s and Bernie’s wealth-tax proposals would not cost “two cents” or “four cents” but would cost at least $1 million annually from every household worth $50 million or more, and for a billionaire, it would cost at least $40 million per year.

So what do you think these individuals and families are going to do? Just write a check every year and watch their savings dwindle down?

So then the next move by the Warrens, the Sanders’, and their supporters, would be to stop the millionaires and billionaires from legally avoiding these taxes. They would “close loopholes.” And that will lead to Round Two of hiding wealth. And this game would be played for several years while the rich perfected their methods of not allowing the government to seize their wealth UNFAIRLY.

So electing Liz or Bernie represents a fundamental unfairness just in their wealth tax proposal, and I haven’t mentioned the other kooky ideas, like nationalized health insurance, the Green New Deal, and the rest.

Don’t forget to vote on Tuesday for President Trump over William Weld. We wouldn’t want Weld to think he had a shot at taking down Donald Trump.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of 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:

To reach our Facebook site in general:


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: The Globe endorses Elizabeth Warren

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