An error of commission is making a mistake. An error of omission is leaving something out that should be in.
The Boston Globe has, sometime over the last three days, committed an error of omission. It failed to publish any story or make a mention of a major change in the Elizabeth Warren campaign, which is the decision by the campaign’s Finance Director to leave. This reportedly (by the New York Times) comes because there was a disagreement about holding parties to get wealthy donors to bundle their contributions, a common practice among most candidates and one in which Warren has participated in the past.
Yet presumably because her Democratic competitors are raising more money than she is, she decided to eschew these events, claiming that this would allow her to do more events with voters and relying more on grassroots contributions. She also said she wouldn’t necessarily continue this policy in the general election if she becomes the nominee. That clearly slants her move as political, not idealistic. Here is a link to the NYT story, which was published online on March 31 and printed in the paper on April 1: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/31/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-fundraising.html?smprod=nytcore-ipad&smid=nytcore-ipad-share
The reason that the Globe didn’t run this story in the past three days is my concern. The story was run on Boston.com, but clearly Globe readers should have seen a version of it somewhere.
I emailed Boston Globe Editor Brian McGrory but got no response, so I guess I am forced to speculate.
I don’t think the Globe wants to tarnish our Senator’s reputation any further (if it can get any lower, that is.) The Times said this resignation showed signs of trouble in the campaign. Unlike 2016, she is having trouble raising money. She is currently relying on her Senatorial war-chest to fund her presidential ambitions, but that won’t be nearly enough to get her through the summer if her candidacy stalls. So the Globe doesn’t want to pile on.
Is this because they continue to support her candidacy? Is it because they have already invested so many resources and so much political capital into it?
Just yesterday, I wrote my Media Criticism piece that I was missing my daily Warren Report. It turns out there was Warren news, the Globe just decided to ignore it.
Let me suggest that the Globe will continue to lose readers who feel that the paper’s biased political and social coverage and playing favorites is not sound journalism. We don’t need an organization dedicated to helping the Democrat Party. We already have such an organization, and it is called the Democrat Party. And they (as well as the Republicans) have plenty of groups helping them.
We do need journalism, but we don’t need it the way it is being practiced by the professionals at the Boston Globe.
(A side note: I included photo three as the “political notebook” feature on Monday. The second article recounts a “typo” that ran during a Fox News show. The Chyron described the three Central American countries where most of the migrants are coming from as “3 Mexican countries.” The hosts did not make the mistake, it was someone in the control room who incorrectly summarized the piece.
Now, as important as this is, the Globe could easily have dropped this “breaking news intrigue” and had a blurb about the Warren staffer leaving the campaign. Monday should have been the latest day this Warren news should have been printed.
But I also checked Tuesday’s paper, and nothing there either. The “political notebook” had a blurb about a new biography of Barbara Bush who was criticizing Trump, and a new book about how Trump cheats at golf.
Hmm, I sense a pattern here, but I can’t quite put my finger on 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!