Blinded by science

Blinded by science

PE Bias Grade : N/A

By: Allen Nitschelm on October 6, 2020 | Editorial Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title What we can learn from the president’s infection
Date 10/03/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A8 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist BG Editorial Board
Article Summary

Boston Globe editorializes about the Coronavirus and climate change connection.

Share This Story

The radical Left has come up with dozens of attacks on President Trump and his allies and voters. One of the ones we hear constantly is that the Right “doesn’t believe in science.” Today, the Globe uses this allegation to link the Coronavirus with Climate Change. You see, here are two examples of President Trump not believing in science.

Appealing to a “higher authority” than ordinary mortals is like a religious belief. The Left now worships “science” because science, evidently, is infallible.

Of course, most of us know that to be false. Science is great, but it is like a data point. One needs to see the entire picture in order to make good judgments, not just the scientific picture.

If science were always right, they wouldn’t need to keep replicating their studies, would they? And how often has something that was generally accepted as true later became disputed and was instead found to be false?

Former Vice President Joe Biden, who declared he embodied the Democratic Party at the first debate, is so afraid of Coronavirus he has made wearing masks the central point of his campaign. He is running on criticizing President Trump for his handling of the pandemic and appears to be running away from his own record and policies. By the time Biden were to take office, the pandemic will likely be on the way out, with millions of people getting vaccinated. So electing someone on how they would handle a moot point seems a bit crazy, but we are living in crazy times.

Anyone who thinks for himself knows that Biden and other top Democrats downplayed the virus. So did Trump (he says he did so to keep people calm), and so did many of our top scientists. The ones who seemed to know better, the Chinese government, also  publicly downplayed the virus while they shut down internal travel and locked down Wuhan, only allowing the foreigners to leave the country.

So when someone gets sick from Coronavirus, or dies, Democrats blame Trump and Republicans blame China. Biden’s party has repeatedly said Trump is responsible for over 200 million deaths…oops, I meant 200 thousand deaths, even though everyone knows Trump’s travel bans helped prevent a total disaster and an overwhelmed medical system.

But now that we have gotten better treatments and know more about the disease, we need to strike a balance somewhere in between hugging and kissing total strangers and mandating that people wear masks to bed or while showering.

Remember back to February or March: the goal was to “flatten the curve.” That goal has been met. Now the goalposts have been moved to “prevent exposure” and that is a completely different goal, one which is proving harder to do and requires a much longer sacrifice. And this greater sacrifice just happens to impinge on our civil liberties. Democrats don’t seem to mind this as much, which is perhaps why they are okay with the Socialist path their Party is now on.

The science is clear. If you don’t want to get exposed, hunker down and eliminate all direct and even indirect human contact. But people can’t live that way, not unless their lives depend on it, and that would apply to the very old and the very sick. The rest of us can decide, as adults, if we want to take a calculated risk.

The Globe’s attempt to link their “climate change” narrative with their “Coronavirus” narrative is desperate. I think they believe that so many people have been brainwashed about “climate change” that by making the connection, they might be helping to reinforce the Biden campaign message that dealing with Coronavirus is about following science. And they hope that voters will not think about Biden’s other policies until after the election. Biden does not seem to want to talk about his proposals, and the media does not want to question him directly. They would prefer that he sling the mud, accusing Trump of basically committing murder. Biden even personally called him a racist during the debate.

So I think Biden’s Coronavirus focus is an attempt at misdirection. The virus won’t be a major issue come January or perhaps the Spring, and whatever we as a country will be doing will be locked in by January 20th. If Biden gets elected, he will immediately pivot to working on moving the country to the Left, raising taxes, making it even harder for businesses to succeed, and giving out more federal funds to all sorts of “desperate” needs, like taking care of Blue State unfunded pension liabilities and such. Our annual deficit will be running in the Trillions per year, and it will just be a matter of time before out economy has a shock like we haven’t seen since the 1930s, or maybe ever.

Blindly “following the science” no matter the costs is exactly what the Left wants to do with “climate change,” too. They will move to eliminate fossil fuels, the internal combustion engine, and our basic cost of living will skyrocket, thereby reducing our standard of living. And it won’t do a thing to stop “climate change” because the rest of the world won’t be so foolish as to self-destruct their energy sector and their economy. Perhaps the diabolical plan of the Left is to have an economic meltdown so that we have no money and can’t afford to heat our homes, drive our cars, or run our factories. You can be sure that the Chinese Communist Party members will not be making such sacrifices.

Even if science is on the Left’s side (and it really isn’t, but let’s pretend), economics is not. Socialism is not going to continue the prosperity that Americans have come to enjoy and the world has depended on for 80 years. We will see the U.S. being eclipsed by a totalitarian regime that has copied parts of capitalism but retained the yoke of communism, and then we will have even larger, scarier decisions to make as a country, without the economic, technological, or military edge we now have.

For fans of the ’80s, here’s the video link:


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: What we can learn from the president’s infection

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