Media can’t help itself on anti-Trump coverage

Media can’t help itself on anti-Trump coverage

PE Bias Grade : N/A

By: Allen Nitschelm on March 31, 2020 | Media Criticism

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title N/A
Date N/A
Article Link N/A
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist N/A
Article Summary N/A
Share This Story

I am on a self-imposed moratorium on covering the Boston Globe, because the Boston Globe is pretty much 100% Coronavirus coverage every day. But they do still manage to publish their anti-Trump editorials and articles, even during the pandemic. It makes one wonder what natural disaster could happen that would stop the papers from politicizing everything and I can’t think of one.

This is a natural disaster. It isn’t the fault of China that the virus happened (as these things seem to happen every five or ten years) but the Communist Party silenced their citizens who were warning the public, which in turn led to the virus, well, going viral (isn’t that what viruses do?). Luckily for us, at least in the short term, President Trump put a travel ban in place on China and that allowed this country some needed time to prepare to deal with the situation as best we can. The media would never congratulate Trump, as they were too busy calling him a racist when he implemented it.

President Trump is not a scientist, so when he expresses hope publicly that things might start getting back to normal by Easter, he is being an optimist. That is a good role for the President. It turns out that we may be “hunkering down” for a little while longer than that, just to make sure the spread is minimized to protect the health of those vulnerable, but the media couldn’t help itself in suggesting that Trump was ignoring the medical scientists, etc.

This concept that Republicans ignore science is laughable. But the purpose behind the attack isn’t. If one questions the dire predictions based on pseudo-science and possible but improbable scenarios, one is against science.

So our “scientists” have been predicting a huge death toll from this virus. Of those who will die, many were vulnerable to disease because their immune systems are compromised. So while we want to protect these people by limiting the spread, making sure our healthcare system doesn’t become overwhelmed, it is no reason for absolute panic and depression. The underlying disease appears to be mild for most people and seems about as nasty as the flu to get, with many having few if any symptoms.

But by practicing social distancing for a little while longer, the infection rate should quickly subside, we should be able to handle the patients already exposed, and then the virus should be under control. In the future, we will have vaccines and effective treatments.

Think about AIDS. That was a 100% fatal disease and many died, yet now nobody does. AIDS was a much worse disease than this Coronavirus. Obviously, this disease is much easier to catch, but diseases that are easy to catch usually aren’t fatal (otherwise they would have a much harder time spreading.)

The Boston Globe remains almost unreadable these days, with the most interesting parts to me (politics) pretty much off the radar. The economic news is troubling but hard to predict. If the virus runs its course soon, we may be seeing things mostly back to normal. And as those who have been infected recover, including healthcare professionals, they can return to work, immune.

I did read some reports about Nancy Pelosi today, basically saying that Trump was doing nothing other than ignoring his scientific and medical advisers. Actually, maybe reading about the minutiae of this disease is more interesting and enlightening than anything Speaker Pelosi has to say.

——=——

Allen Nitschelm is publisher of PublicEditorMA.com. 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: https://www.facebook.com/390560688135747/posts/813160749209070

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/

 

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: N/A

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