The New York Times has now officially opened its “police bureau” on gender usage, and the Boston Globe happily runs today’s piece which criticizes President Trump for sexism and racism for using loaded words meant to demean women. Trump’s criticism was leveled at VP nominee Kamala Harris, a woman of Jamaican and Indian descent.
Today’s examples are “suburban housewife,” which is not sexist or demeaning to women, it is descriptive; and “nasty” which Trump has used often for both genders.
What the media is trying to do is blunt legitimate criticism of VP nominee Harris by personally attacking her critics using charges of racism or sexism. This has become very common on the Left and is now part of the “cancel culture” where if you speak what the Left doesn’t like, they shame you, try to get you fired, try to embarrass you, or try to hold you up to ridicule.
Lucky for America, President Trump has an unbelievably thick skin and these attacks have become so common that they are easy for most people to dismiss.
But I wanted to look carefully at today’s article because something very strange caught my eye. President Trump was describing “suburban housewives” who might support him because they were against low-income housing projects coming to their towns, which perhaps will lead to safety issues as we have seen in big cities recently. The journalist writing this piece says that “suburban housewives” is “a racist euphemism for white women wary of minorities….”
If that is true, then the article later goes on to quote another racist named Celinda Lake, a Democratic pollster. She seems very comfortable polling and generalizing about these white suburban women:
“If he’s relying on that group to save him, he better get a life jacket,’’ Lake said of white suburban women. “They like safety, they like security, but they think that Trump’s lack of a plan, poor leadership, of not listening to experts have made things more dangerous for their families.’’
She added, “Even the white non-college-educated suburban women are turning against him…
So if President Trump discusses whether white suburban housewives will support him and he is a racist, sexist, or both, then Celinda Lake speculating that white suburban women will not support Trump must also be a racist, or a sexist, or perhaps both. Unless, of course, the media has a double-standard: one for Republicans and one for Democrats.
The entire article runs along the same lines. The journalist feels she can read President Trump’s mind, so when Trump calls Kamala Harris “nasty” for attacking Joe Biden during the primary or Brett Kavanaugh during his Supreme Court nomination hearing, that is misogyny. But as the press likes to say, she offers no proof of this theory, it is merely her speculation, and is as biased as it sounds.
I did a quick Internet search for other people Trump has called nasty, and it includes both men and women of all races. So this is a descriptive word which is not racist or sexist based on Trump’s past usage. (See https://people.com/politics/everyone-donald-trump-has-called-nasty/?).
And just two days ago, Trump called NBA players nasty too. I don’t know too many Black-Indian women who play for the NBA, but perhaps there are some who identify as such. (https://www.marketwatch.com/story/trump-calls-nba-players-very-nasty-and-very-dumb-for-criticizing-him-2020-08-11)
Too bad the journalist couldn’t do just five seconds of research before publishing her erroneous theory.
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/906450896546721
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!