Globe has orgy on Trump-Putin summit

Globe has orgy on Trump-Putin summit

PE Bias Grade : F

By: Allen Nitschelm on July 17, 2018 | Article Review, Media Criticism

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Trump lets Putin deny meddling
Date 07/17/2018
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From New York Times
Journalist Julie Hirschfeld Davis
Matt Viser
Article Summary

Two articles cover the Trump-Putin summit, both showing bias in what happened, how it was reported, and how it was framed. There is a hidden narrative at work.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe engaged in a political orgy today over the Trump-Putin press conference in Helsinki, in which Trump failed to forcefully challenge Putin during the press conference on the charge of Russian interference in the 2016 election. Two front-page articles shared a headline with both complaining that Trump defended Putin against Russian hacking charges. So now, Trump’s strategy has finally become clear. He is secretly conspiring with Vladimir Putin while publicly praising and defending him. Sounds like a good strategy.

Or perhaps not. Perhaps Trump’s attack of Russian forces in Syria (in response to chemical weapons attacks and battlefield confrontations), his decision to sell lethal weapons to Ukraine (something his predecessor refused to do), and his pushback on the German-Russian gas line are hardly the actions of a Putin puppet.

Maybe Trump is trying something different, something unconventional. Perhaps he is trying to create a personal dialogue between the two leaders to reduce the chance of war and conflict. Perhaps, in Trump’s mind, he is better off playing “good cop/bad cop” with the “bad cop” being the Washington and media swamp which seems to be trying to derail this detente. Maybe Trump felt that confronting Russia in view of the world press would not advance the United States’ goals of rapprochement with the country that has the second-largest cache of nuclear weapons and is a needed ally in dealing with China, North Korea, the Mideast, terrorism, etc.

Based now on a couple of years of Trump watching, his playbook seems pretty consistent. He “befriends” his enemies and adversaries and uses that “friendship” to extract concessions. If a “friend” crosses him, he reacts quickly and belligerently. He has a sense of what is fair and if the other side isn’t playing fair, he calls them on it. Maybe this opening gambit with Putin is setting the stage for future diplomatic efforts to try to truly “reset” relations with Russia (versus the Obama-Clinton reset, which was a disaster.)

OK, on to the meat of the first article by Julie Hirshfeld Davis of the NYT.

Davis asserts that President Trump “publicly challenged the conclusion of his own intelligence agencies that Moscow interfered in the 2016 presidential election.” There is no question that the media has been trying to push Trump’s buttons on this issue with their “collusion” witch hunt, so let’s objectively go back to 2016 and recall a few facts.

First, both American political parties were targeted by Russian hackers. Both parties were warned by the feds that this was occurring. President Obama declared that the Russians could not “hack” the election: it was a ridiculous statement and candidate Trump should focus on the election and not look for excuses for why he was about to lose.

Second, the “witch hunt” is a fact. There has been no evidence released after over two years of investigation that shows Trump campaign “collusion” with Russia. Yet the Boston Globe continues to bring up this narrative at every opportunity. I guess if you repeat a lie often enough, many people will believe it. Certainly everyone at The Globe does. When Trump vehemently denies collusion, this is what he is referring to. The newer narrative (since no collusion has been shown) is that Russia tried to interfere in the election to help Trump. It is my view that interference was more likely less personal and more about sowing discord. But since Hillary was the front-runner, maybe that was the best way to cause confusion.

After two years of a nothing-burger investigation into “collusion,” it is no wonder that the emotional, self-centered, mercurial Donald Trump would go off the deep end on this topic. He shouldn’t…it would be much better if he didn’t….we could all wish for a more perfect individual as president…but he was elected, he is our president, and we are stuck with him for the remainder of his term. So we can allow the Democrats, the “deep state,” and the mainstream media to keep riding him every day until he cracks, or we can admit his faults and then let’s move on. Or is this really about electing more Democrats so moving on doesn’t serve the political purposes of Trump’s opponents?

This talk of “impeachment” because of what was said in a press conference is truly looney. But if a former Obama administration official says it, it is great to repeatedly quote and write op/Ed’s discussing it seriously. Go for it, I guess. It is a free country and if people want to write about repealing the second Amendment, getting rid of the Electoral College, having California secede, or impeaching Trump, have at it.

And the reference to Trump’s “own” intelligence agencies is particularly amusing. With friends like those, Trump needs no enemies. His “own” intelligence agencies have been trying to undermine him, perhaps delegitimize his election, since before the election and since. The timing of the 12 Russian GRU operatives right before the Trump-Putin summit is also interesting.

But with all the Fake News in the mainstream media, debunking each little snippet takes all day.

Moving on to the Matt Viser “analysis” piece, Viser likes to play fast and loose with his overly broad assertions. He claims Trump called the EU a “foe” and Russia a “friend.” We all know that Trump is trying to get the EU to pay its fair share for NATO and for balanced trade. We all know that Trump is doing a charm offensive to try to improve US-Russian relations. In this context, Trump wants to find some common ground with Russia and not antagonize Putin. If this were Obama during his Russian reset, calling Russia a friend would be hailed as genius.

Viser looks for every little detail to try to show that Trump was outsmarted by Putin, even describing that Putin made “Trump wait for him” and that Putin “spoke first” and the first question was asked to a “Russian reporter.” If that is the criteria Viser wants Globe readers to use to determine “who won,” then I guess Putin outsmarted Viser, not Trump.

Viser then repeats the far-Left’s claim that having a press conference with Putin and not publicly shaming Putin further by attacking him for Russian meddling amounts to “treason.” Giving weight to such crazy Leftist talk is one of the markers of the Globe’s bias covering Trump. It is very easy to find Trump critics willing to say anything about him, but the Globe’s choice in reprinting such accusations calls into question their impartiality. But this type of reporting is OK with Globe editors, so long as the article is labeled “analysis.”

Objectively, Trump’s performance with Putin was sub-par. The Globe’s overall coverage of what happened and the reaction of mainstream Republicans and Democrats seems accurate. The fact that Trump’s enemies in the media can’t wait for such a mistake to pounce is unfortunate, but it is what it is.

Outside of the beltway, I think most people will understand what Trump is trying to do. Inside the beltway, it perhaps feels like some sort of a betrayal. If the President doesn’t back up his intelligence community (even as parts of that community seek to undermine him), then that looks bad. The history and dishonesty of Putin is well known and praising and siding with Putin would seem to be just foolish. But in the context of trying to mend relations, I can see why Trump did it, even if the Globe and the Washington establishment can’t accept this as an explanation. As Chuck Schumer said, “what is it? What could it possibly be?”

I think it is Trump trying to get along with Putin in an attempt to reset relations. Only time will tell if the public shaming Trump is now enduring will be worth it, in other words, will our relationship improve?

Article Two link: http://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/article_popover.aspx?guid=231db4af-4498-43bf-b6f3-2a929f1f66b8

 

Author Rating

Rating: 1.0/10.

Description

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: Trump lets Putin deny meddling

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

Subject

Rating: 1.0/10.

Description