I am not doing too many editorial reviews these days. The op-Ed columnists the Globe employs are tiresome one-note shrill voices that just attack President Trump endlessly. Too boring for me to deal with regularly.
The Globe’s editorials are no better, although I sometimes sense an attempt to be somewhat balanced. Usually this is just a throwaway line or two, so maybe I am reading some moderation into them where none exists. Or it could be that I am sensing a guilty conscious–they realize their reporting and opinions are completely unbalanced, so they try to sound a bit more reasonable when they do an official editorial. But that’s probably just my imagination.
But today’s editorial against funding the border wall has some glaring logical inconsistencies which are just too juicy to pass up.
The first three-quarters of the editorial argues that $3.1 billion diverted from other military projects, mostly in other countries, is just too steep a price to pay for border security for our own country. The Globe disagrees with the security experts and thousands of years of human experience which says “walls work.” The Globe believes allowing millions of illegal entries into the U.S. is far safer than, say, military infrastructure in Puerto Rico and the U.S. Virgin Isles. Really? I am not aware of imminent threats in those islands, but maybe the Chinese or Russians are secretly landing soldiers to infiltrate there. Or maybe the “boat people” are migrating there and then proceeding on to the mainland. Haven’t heard about either, but who knows.
The Globe’s own article on this funding diversion cited a parking lot at West Point as one of the domestic projects being affected. Sounds like a national security crisis to me, for sure.
But then the Globe says, never mind, the real issue isn’t the money at all. It is the “lawlessness” of the President. The Globe doesn’t disclose that the fund diversion was authorized by Congress years ago and confirmed by the Supreme Court. Doesn’t sound too lawless to me.
Then the Globe praises Utah Sen. Mike Lee for introducing legislation to close this loophole. So the Globe admits that the loophole exists and the President used it, which is legal. So just another illogical contradiction.
If the Globe were an honest broker of thought (here goes my imagination again) they would be equally as harsh at the Democrats who have resisted all efforts to solve this in a bipartisan manner. Trump said in his first or second State of the Union address that he was open to a compromise, and would even give amnesty to the children who were brought here as minors (the “dreamers”), which used to be a big issue in Democrat talking points. But the Pelosi-Schumer group has no interest in compromising, no interest in solving any of the problems, no interest in closing the immigration loopholes, no interest in stopping the drugs and human trafficking…and no interest in making the Dreamers legal. The Globe can only see fault with President Trump.
Today’s editorial is proof that the Globe doesn’t just have Very Fake News, it also has Very Fake Opinions.
*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!