The Adam Schiff rehabilitation article in today’s Boston Globe reminds me of the Elizabeth Warren series of articles. The bias is the article itself. It is designed to make readers think what a nice, reasonable, moderate guy Schiff is. He played flag football! He was a geek in law school. Even his professor, Lawrence Tribe, thinks Schiff should have been trying to impeach Trump for the past year. Schiff wouldn’t do that because until now, you see, there just hasn’t been enough evidence.
Also, Schiff was busy doing other things. He was busy telling the country that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” that Donald Trump colluded with Russia. He was just waiting for the Mueller Report to come out to pounce. With that fizzling, Schiff needs a new justification.
He is as partisan as they come. He has lied about the Russian collusion story and he purposely misrepresented President Trump’s words when he “parodied” the call between Trump and Zelensky.
So now that Adam Schiff is leading the impeachment charge, to the rescue comes the Boston Globe! Let’s run a puff-piece, a la Elizabeth Warren, to make Schiff a hero of the Resistance. If anyone thought Schiff was a partisan hack just out to get Trump, stories from his days at Harvard will fix that. I’ll bet Schiff’s mother loves him too, even though he didn’t become a doctor. Too bad for the United States of America.
*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!