Liz Kowalczyk manages to write the perfect article about “political correctness” I have seen in my month or two of reviewing Boston Globe articles. Nice job!
Sometimes bias in articles is accomplished just by the topic, and that is the case here. Whoever the previous leaders of Brigham and Women’s Hospital were, these are facts, not opinions. Brigham and Women’s is an excellent hospital and its previous leaders deserve recognition, praise, and respect, especially within the organization. They roles do not deserve to be minimized because of their ethnicity or sex. What ever happened to the ideal colorblind society that I thought all Americans supported?
So using this same logic, I can expect no plurality of photographs of black athletes if I visit the basketball or football Halls of Fame, or if I go to China and visit their hospital, I better not see photos of previous leaders if they are all Chinese. If I go to Kenya, I better not see all black faces on any of their history walls. If I go to a medical school in Norway, I hope that their former leaders are not all white men. That would be scandalous! And if I visit a nursing college, I better not see a history of former leaders dominated by women.
There were very few women in the medical field years ago and now they are prevalent. That is a good thing. But acknowledging the past and celebrating the individuals who helped shape it is also a good thing. Pretending that we weren’t led by white men 50 or 100 years ago is revisionism.
The move behind this change, and probably the one who dropped the dime to the reporter, is mentioned in the fifth paragraph. Dr. Betsy Nabel is the hospital’s president and she “had considered ending the tradition…for several years.” The president reported that “no one has openly objected to the change” among those she questioned. What a surprise. I wonder how many staff members would object to her “openly” as the president?
With courage like this, perhaps it is time to stop honoring all leaders of Brigham and Women’s, starting with Dr. Nabel.
*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!