Today’s example of unbiased journalism is the article detailing the termination of Homeland Security head Kirstjen Nielsen, who evidently wasn’t tough enough at the border for President Trump during the unprecedented invasion of our Southern border by Central American migrants.
Trump governs like a CEO, not like a politician, and it is disquieting to the normal way Washington “works.” This is covered by the press as disorganization and disarray. The Democrats whom the press interviews are happy to confirm this, which is just another reason to vote for the Democratic Socialist in 2020.
Trump should be pressured to name permanent heads of these agencies, but perhaps the long confirmation process, delayed by Democrats purposely stalling, have made confirmation less of a priority. But recently, it was reported that Senate Majority Leader McConnell had changed the length of debate from 30 hours to two, and if this applies to confirmation of cabinet secretaries, he should urge President Trump to appoint permanent replacements quickly.
My concern with today’s article is not just the tone, which is of course critical of the president, but of the mischaracterization of Secretary Nielsen’s departure. The article makes it sound like President Trump suddenly turned on Nielsen, much to her surprise, and fired her. It says that he supported Nielsen for the position just as he is now supporting the new Acting head, Kevin McAleenan. But everyone knows that Nielsen has been on the rocks for months and months, so I’m not sure why this is being reported this way, unless the reporter thinks readers don’t remember the history. So this is just another act of disloyalty by President Trump to someone he formerly supported. This underscores the narrative of disarray, secret administration members who are working against the President, chaos, inefficiency, bad government, etc.
Maybe it’s time we had a professional in the White House, someone who can work efficiently with his or her team to extract the maximum amount of money for redistribution.
*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!