There are Leftist kooks and Rightist kooks. Using violence or threats of violence have no place in civilized society or a democracy. If you don’t like your leaders, work and vote for their opponents during election season.
But the media seems to cover the violence differently depending on whether it is Leftists or Rightists who are committing it. Today’s example is someone whose politics go unreported, but who sent a threatening letter with white powder in it to Senator Susan Collins of Maine. This is an act of terrorism, even though the powder was determined to be inert.
How come this person’s political views weren’t mentioned? Who have they given money to? Who have they worked for? Does the person have an Obama bumper sticker on their car?
When a Republican is threatened or targeted, it is a small article with no details. When a Democrat is the target, we get the full Monty of coverage, including questions to President Trump about what he thinks of “his supporters” using violence, and whether Trump is overtly or covertly really behind the violence because he doesn’t condemn it loudly or often enough.
This is a good example of the double standard the media uses. Trump supporters act because Trump is a racist and White Supremacist who is egging them on. But when Democrats commit acts of violence, their affiliation is not mentioned, their political heroes go unnamed, their inspiration is unknown. The story, if reported, is short on speculation and connections.
The media has not reported on how Leftist mobs have taken over downtown Portland, Oregon, or how Leftists have assaulted Conservative speakers on college campuses. Was Bernie Sanders responsible somehow for the kook who shot the Congressional baseball field, severely injuring Congressman Steve Scalise?
*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!