Columnist crosses reporter line

Columnist crosses reporter line

PE Bias Grade : B

By: Allen Nitschelm on September 8, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Weakening recovery may widen fallout
Date 09/06/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Larry Edelman
Shirley Leung
Article Summary

Coronavirus, the economy, and the stock market are covered in this article by a Globe columnist and reporter.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe is barely readable these days, with constant stories about racism, Coronavirus, or how Coronavirus affects racism. The Globe is in full propaganda mode, building up to a crescendo of support for former VP Joe Biden, hoping that their readers blindly vote for the Socialist slate while they focus on things that don’t matter as much, like Donald Trump’s personality or his latest incendiary comment.

One of the big differences between TV and newspaper journalism are the rules for distinguishing between opinion and news journalists. They are quite clear in print and quite blurry on TV. Some stations have anchors or reporters who seem to be news journalists but then appear as “pundits” on talk shows, making it impossible for viewers to know when news is being reported and when opinions are disguised as news.

In a newspaper, however, the lines are supposed to be clear…except when the Globe violates them, as it did the other day when it ran a story on page 1 with two bylines, one a reporter’s and one a columnist’s.

Shirley Leung has had numerous opinion pieces denouncing Trump’s racism or the Republican Party’s racism, much in line with almost all of the rest of the paper’s columnists. The Globe has always had a Far Left editorial page and it is as bad as ever. But the Globe has also crossed the line by printing biased news articles, many of which I’ve documented here on Public Editor Press over the last couple of years.

I don’t recall Ms. Leung’s columns recently, perhaps she is working on gluing the paper together as it is falling apart, but she is certainly not a news journalist and when she puts that hat on, she needs to follow the rules–like keeping her Far-Left Liberal bias out of the news articles.

Today’s example in what appears to be a news article but which has a very biased word which shows the reporters’ and editors’ disdain for American capitalism and support for the Far Left’s Socialist agenda, and it occurs right in the first sentence:

Far from a leveler, the coronavirus pandemic has exacerbated America’s already grotesque wealth gap. The rich have gotten richer — much richer in some cases. The poor are being squeezed from all sides. And so a longstanding question has taken on new urgency: How long can our divided economy stand?

Did you catch the word? It is “grotesque,” as in–being rich or making money is terrible and shameful.

Race does make an appearance later in the article (of course, it wouldn’t be a Globe news article without the race angle being explored), but this is mostly about economics and Coronavirus.

What the Left obviously won’t tell us is that Joe Biden’s America will mean the “rich” will be taxed into submission and the economy will tank, thereby reducing the gap between rich and poor. I think the best example of this is Venezuela, where both rich and poor are equally miserable.

The flaw in the Left’s reasoning is simple. Rich people do not get that way by taking money out of the pockets of poor people. They don’t, because poor people don’t have that much money to begin with. The rich get their money from the enormous wealth of the country, by providing goods and services that all people want. And when someone buys a product or uses a service, they get the immediate benefit or they wouldn’t buy it or use it. In fact, such transactions benefit both parties, which is why capitalism is so great. We don’t have a government bureaucrat deciding which products to make and which ones people can buy. Those decisions are made by billions of individual buying decisions. It works like magic.

And these days, we have a second type of rich person, one that hasn’t necessarily accomplished much other than investments based on speculation. These Internet Billionaires are not taking money from the poor, either; they are getting it from wealthy investors who think the future worth of the company will be greater. This wealth is based on stocks which are (potentially) seriously overvalued. Is Tesla really more valuable than several other car companies combined when they make and sell a fraction of the products? But that speculation by rich investors and Wall Street is fueling many Billionaires on paper.

But when our government is printing money and allowing unlimited spending, an artificial bubble has been created in the stock market. There is no where else to park money when interest rates are zero, so all the money flooding the market is driving up prices. At some point, people will wake up and realize that artificial stimulus not backed by increased productivity will lead to inflation, and an economic correction, and we will have to return to normal economics.

The currency bubble is leading to a stock market bubble and we either have to pay the money back, or we will decide not to, and either way, the resulting contraction might reverse all the artificial gains.

The best way to help “poor people” of whatever race is to provide a stable economy, job opportunities, a climate favorable to entrepreneurship, and allow people to pursue their dreams and reap the benefits of hard work, taking risk, and saving. The Joe Biden plan will curtail the risk-benefits of success, will punish those most successful, and will encourage more people to lean on the government instead of themselves. And that is no way to build economic growth, it is a way to manage a long and sorry decline.

Just harken back to what President Obama said. He said we should prepare for a steady decline in the economy because robust growth is no longer possible, and he said those manufacturing jobs were gone forever, sent overseas by our myopic trade policies that traded short-term cheap goods for long-term prosperity. And his actions helped make his perspective come true with overly burdensome regulations and higher taxes.

Joe Biden and his Party wants to surrender America to globalism, Iran, and China. But even if Biden wins in November, the American public has learned that we can have strong economic growth and compete with the world if we choose to do so. We do not have to accept the defeatism of the Left.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of 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:

To reach our Facebook site in general:


Author Rating

Rating: 7.0/10.


There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: Weakening recovery may widen fallout

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

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!

Leave A Comment


Rating: 7.0/10.