The fawning media as personified by the Boston Globe has an impressive puff piece on former First Lady, Senator, Secretary of State, and Democrat candidate for President Hillary Rodham Clinton, who escaped prosecution for misusing and not securing classified documents while in government, lying about her personal email server to conduct business, conspiring with former President Obama to win the election of 2016 using any means necessary, and personally benefitting by selling access to a future Clinton presidency to donors of the Clinton foundation.
Now that Clinton is no longer running for office, all disguises of non-partisan coverage have been discarded and reporters like Ms. Ebbert can speak their angst through Clinton to their readers directly. Why won’t Clinton call President Trump evil? Why won’t she say that President Trump is a racist and so are his supporters? Why won’t she take him on? Oh sorry, she is doing that.
“Human rights are women’s rights” is one of the “most memorable lines of her career,” yet she managed to befriend Harvey Weinstein and was the coordinator of the “bimbo eruption” group during her husband’s presidency. Women who exposed Bill Clinton were personally confronted by Hillary and threatened by her, but I guess the accusers aren’t to be believed despite their gender.
Well, since Hillary is a female and tried to win the election by appealing to her natural constituency, this comment by the reporter is to be expected, even as it was “quoted by no fewer than three speakers….” So I guess there are at least four people who believe it.
Clinton said she “didn’t want” to get political, but the Cambridge Liberals wanted their red meat and she provided it as expected. How could she not, with the most evil person ever to be sitting in the Oval Office?
“It’s not been an easy time for more than half of our country…” she said. Is this an oblique reference to one of her 127 reasons for her defeat, that the “popular vote” went to her despite her loss? Or is she counting the millions of illegal immigrants, some of whom didn’t get to cast their vote despite their devotion to her candidacy?
We dodged a bullet in not electing her as president and I guess these sour-grapes reports by the reporters at the Globe and like-minded media are a small price to have to pay. Think of the alternative.
*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!