I should have seen the signal. On Sunday, the Boston Globe ran an opinion piece about organizing Leftist activists to protest Donald Trump’s re-election. If Trump tries to stay in office, they believe it will effectively be a “coup” and they are ready to take to the streets. The link to my first article is here: https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=809f7c77-144a-41e9-ba8e-a15cf40ecea6&appid=1165
Today, we get a news story, very supportive, of this same action. The Leftist media is starting to propagandize the election and are sending signals in advance to mobilize their supporters. Revolutions can happen with just this sort of tactic. It is inflammatory and irresponsible, but no less destructive to our democracy than having our “unbiased news media” take sides.
They start with polls that show Joe Biden is way ahead, so nobody will believe it if Trump wins. Then they change state laws to allow for longer deadlines for mail-in voting, so as to string out the amount of time before either candidate can be declared the winner. We have several Democrat leaders urging Biden never to concede to Trump. There are thousands of lawyers ready to fight this out in court from both sides. And now, we are told that if Trump stays in power, it will be a coup. And the Left is giving their marching orders to those citizens who support Biden. They are literally preparing to tear the country apart.
We have seen the tactics of the Left: they use mob-violence in order to intimidate their opponents. A mob seems to free up the “inner anarchist” who might otherwise peacefully protest. And the Left has been practicing their tactics for a while, starting off with protests about supposed police racism. When you demonize your political opponents, it is easy to understand how supporters physically attack police officers doing their job properly. Seems like the police will have their hands full in the next week or two, or perhaps longer.
What caught my eye in this article, besides its very scary undertones, was a particular word used by an activist organization to describe their tactics of civil unrest and disobedience. And the word was “blockade.”
This is not being used as a naval term. I believe it refers to preventing people or vehicles for going where they want to go. Locally, the most recent example was closing down a section of Interstate 93 in Somerville, for which the Somerville mayor gave a free pass to the protesters (see https://www.bostonglobe.com/metro/2015/09/24/somerville-mayor-calls-for-charges-dropped-against-protesters/Lt8b1Lxr7V3A9Jcs2RDhLP/story.html)
But on the high seas, a blockade is considered an act of war, and there is a reason for that designation. It seems similar to me why “kidnapping” is such a serious crime. Depriving someone of their ability to move around is a type of violence against them. And it can have very serious repercussions, not just inconvenience. The oft-cited example is the ambulance racing to the hospital that doesn’t get there in time because of one of these protests blocking the streets.
It is one thing for the media to cover spontaneous protests, marches, or riots; it is quite another to seemingly encourage them. And as I wrote yesterday, the protest organizers will insist on non-violence, but some of the participants often have another agenda.
It is possible that these articles are meant to intimidate Trump voters from going to the polls next Tuesday. Maybe some voters will feel that even electing President Trump is not worth a riot or weeks or months of civil unrest. But then again, Trump supporters are very passionate and may not be dissuaded by attempts at voter suppression.
Besides blockading, the Left might also target politicians, business leaders, and police. Here is how they phrase it:
The trainers urged attendees to choose a “pillar of power’’ to focus on — politicians, or business, or police, for example — and consider nonviolent strategies that might sway them, from letter-writing to occupying their offices.
So prepare to keep your doors locked, your children home, and call “911” if necessary. And if the Left chooses to “occupy” offices, let’s not deal with them like they do on college campuses. Unless, of course, they want to occupy the Mayor of Somerville’s office. That is okay, stay there as long as you like.
Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. 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: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/964668364058307
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*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!