President Trump held a news conference reported by the Boston Globe. The report ran on Thursday, Oct. 3. The press conference was held on Wednesday. I happened to watch it; it was with the president of Finland.
At the press conference, Fox News reporter John Roberts asked President Trump to comment on the breaking news just reported by the New York Times that the “whistleblower” had met with someone on Adam Schiff’s staff weeks before filing his complaint.
There is nothing necessarily wrong with such a meeting, but once the whistleblower’s complaint was made public, this meeting should have been disclosed. Instead, Congressman Schiff, Chair of the House Intelligence Committee and the lead chairman appointed by Speaker Pelosi to conduct the impeachment inquiry, lied.
He was asked on TV (CNN, I think) if he had met with the whistleblower and he said no. He has given several indications that the first he heard of the complaint was when he got the report, despite having tweeted out several ominous notes about President Trump and Ukraine in the weeks prior to the complaint being made public. So something was certainly fishy, but when Schiff denied contact, people took him at his word. I guess that’s our bad.
On Tuesday, the Globe may have known this news already. They work with the Times closely and run many articles written by Times reporters. By Wednesday, they certainly knew because Trump was holding a printout of the Times story when John Roberts asked his question. By Thursday, all media could have published this information which was in the public domain on Wednesday.
So I was curious how the Boston Globe would handle this new information about Schiff, the lead inquisitor of the President. Would this cause Pelosi to replace Schiff with someone else, like Jerry Nadler or Maxine Waters? Was this the straw that would break the camel-Schiff’s back? Remember, Schiff lied about President Trump in his “in essence” parody summary of the Trump-Zelensky call which is at the heart of the inquiry. He also lied repeatedly for several years about possessing “more than circumstantial evidence” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
The Globe has printed several articles starting Wednesday that mention Adam Schiff. And the most interesting was the Schiff rehabilitation article that appeared Wednesday. Did the Globe know about the latest Schiff lie and coverup when they wrote Wednesday’s article? (My review of this article is here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/classic-boston-globe-rehabilitation/).
Certainly by Thursday, when they covered the joint press conference, they knew about what Schiff had done. Despite mentioning Schiff in that article, there was no mention of this news. Was the Globe trying to hide this new fact from its readers so that the lead investigator’s reputation would not be further tarnished?
On Friday, again, no mention of Schiff’s coverup. I have included pieces from two articles on this issue which failed to mention Schiff’s staff contact with the whistleblower prior to his complaint filing.
A Google search shows all the major papers covering the story. Why is the Boston Globe not reporting this news? (See photo five for just a few of the outlets shown from the Google search.)
So my first question was when did the Boston Globe learn that Schiff’s staff had met with the whistleblower, and did they also know immediately that Adam Schiff had lied about not having been in such contact? I asked the journalist of Wednesday’s piece on Adam Schiff’s days at Harvard Law, Michael Levenson, and received no response. Michael Levenson has so far earned a C+ from this website over 18 articles reviewed. (For all Reporter Ratings, see https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/reporter-ratings-boston-globe/).
So I must speculate instead, and I’m guessing the Boston Globe got a heads-up about this story from their affiliate, the New York Times. The Times published their piece on Tuesday, according to my Internet search. So it is very likely that reporter Levenson had this information prior to his flattering piece on Schiff. I have included Levenson’s final paragraphs in which he quotes Schiff as saying “At the end of the day, my interest is to protect the rule of law, protect the institutions of our democracy.” So we can add “hypocrite” to Adam Schiff’s qualifications.
As to coverage after Wednesday’s paper, when this news was clearly in the public domain, I have written to Globe Editor Brian McGrory and also received no response. I wanted to know if the decision not to report this important news was made “at the top” or did individual editors of all stories mentioning Adam Schiff since Wednesday just happen to leave this out?
In my opinion, the Boston Globe is trying to cover up this information so its readers in New England don’t learn that Chairman Adam Schiff has been compromised. That might derail the fervor for an impeachment, which the Globe seems desperate to promote.
I guess the Boston Globe does not want to even try defending how it handled this situation, preferring to protect House Chair Adam Schiff from public scrutiny and accountability, while misleading its readers for the “greater good.” Or maybe, like Schiff, the Globe sees its role as “protecting the institutions of our democracy.” Well, Boston Globe, you are doing a stellar job.
*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!