The Boston Globe may be preparing to switch horses. Out with the old, in with the older.
The pending demise of Elizabeth Warren aside, the Globe obviously supports Bernie Sanders too. His only problem is his gender, but once the last standing woman drops out, the Globe will have to pick the best man left. And since they wholeheartedly support the Warren agenda, which most voters know as “Bernie Lite,” they will move over to Sanders and urge the Party to get behind someone with real values and who will make real change.
But of course, that’s the problem most voters are going to have. You can’t sell socialism unless you…fib a lot. So the Boston Globe is starting the fibs and will let Sanders soft-pedal and explain away his socialist programs so they don’t sound so bad.
Here is this article’s case in point. Let me go with the quote first:
“He believes in free markets,’’ he added. “He understands that 85 percent of jobs in this country are private-sector jobs.’’
In fact, at a CNN town hall this week, Sanders assured a voter that Medicare for All would not be “government-run’’ health care, and that doctors and nurses would not be employed by the government. “As you know, under Medicare, you go to any doctor you want, it’s not government-run,’’ he said.
Of course Medicare is not “government-run.” Currently, our government does not run private health care. That would likely change under a Sanders administration.
So whether doctors directly work for the government or if private practices “bill” the government for the services they provide, all private insurance would be eliminated under the Sanders plan. So the net effect is that the government can set prices and tell doctors what to charge. This may technically not be “working for the government” but the effect is the same. Instead of doctors being able to negotiate their fees with insurance companies (and refuse to take some insurance patients if the negotiated fees are not high enough), the doctors would have no bargain power versus the government. Doctors would “take it or leave it.”
And that is before the government decides that costs need to be cut because the program is way too expensive and over-budget. Once that happens, all hell breaks loose.
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/793745527817259
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!