The Boston Globe had a random act of responsible journalism in today’s paper covering the Breonna Taylor shooting and the grand jury indictment of one of the officers in Kentucky.
I only read one minor comment which showed some bias, but it was deep inside the article and wasn’t blatant. The article reported that one neighbor heard police announce their presence and knocked before breaking down the door, which meant that those inside could have been more hesitant to initiate firing their gun, which hit an officer and resulted in the return fire which killed Taylor.
The press widely reported that the police had a “no knock” warrant, which is true. But that implies they burst in, surprising the residents. Instead, the truth indicates this was just a terrible accident and not a case of police misconduct (the officer who was charged fired his weapon randomly, potentially injuring others recklessly.)
The article includes the pejorative description that the New York Times interviewed “nearly” a dozen neighbors to find the one who heard the knock and announcement, implying that perhaps others didn’t hear it or even that the neighbor might be lying. This is irresponsible and without foundation. If a person heard it, then it happened, regardless of how many didn’t hear it. Imagine if the paper had written that they interviewed “thousands“ of residents and only one had heard the police knocking and announcement. So this particular extraneous detail was unnecessary and showed some bias, but I won’t downgrade the article for it.
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/939054416619702
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!