The Leftist media is trying to undermine the NY Post story about Hunter Biden and his “pay to play” scheme to enrich the Biden family. This is based on a short piece published in the Boston Globe but written by the New York Times, a local rival to the Post. The NY Times published information about the Trump tax returns, with perhaps even less objective credibility than this Hunter and Joe Biden story. They provided no proof to readers and named no sources (the Post named three sources, the Apple store owner, Rudy Giuliani, and Steve Bannon.)
The Hunter Biden narrative is clearly damning. Hunter was being paid millions of dollars by entities or countries that could be directly influenced by his father’s position. Hunter even traveled to one of them, China, on Air Force Two. Hunter had no experience but he did have a golden connection, and the Post’s reporting on the laptop seems more than plausible. The FBI has publicly confirmed John Ratcliffe’s assertion that there is no evidence that Russia is behind this, and the FBI has the laptop. The Left would have you believe the Russians personally delivered it to FBI Director Christopher Wray.
But still, these Biden allegations have not been “proven.” So voters will have to weigh this information along with everything else, and decide if the possibility that Joe Biden is irreparably corrupt disqualifies him to be president. Proving something like this is hard, partly because people who commit illegal acts take steps to hide them, including using code words and aliases, like “the big guy.”
The NY Post got the information within weeks of the election and had to quickly try to verify what it could so as not to publish something false. One issue is where the info came from. The conduit from the Apple repair store to Rudy Giuliani and then to the Post would need to be explained to readers because that conduit could cast doubt on the information’s authenticity. Perhaps Rudy forged the emails? Maybe Rudy was working with the Russians?
We now have two standards to compare the Post’s reporting with prior media coverage of alleged Trump scandals. First, we have the Russian collusion reporting, which turned out to be false…there was no collusion. But it just came out that the Hillary Clinton campaign was behind this suggestion, because Obama’s Intelligence chief, John Brennan, briefed the then-President that this was so. Yet the media ran with the story using unnamed sources. Knowing the original story came from the H. Clinton campaign would have been a very important material fact for readers.
And then we have The NY Times-Trump tax return story, which also relies on unnamed sources. Readers should be curious how “vetted” and truthful such a story is when the source requires anonymity. The mainstream media wants you to reflexively trust the NY Times reporting and not the Post’s, but both have editorial positions which call into the same question their objectivity.
In the Post’s example, they revealed that they got the info about the laptop from two hyper-partisans, so readers could weigh the information against the motivations of the sources, something the Times and their Leftist allies do not often provide in their bombshell reports against Trump over the past three years.
Since the Post’s report was first published, we have seen a trickle of additional information which seems to confirm the authenticity of the laptop. We have seen a copy of the drop-off slip apparently signed by Hunter Biden, and we have a statement by the FBI that Russia is not behind this information.
I can’t tell for certain if the laptop was really Hunter’s, if the emails are genuine, and if the “big guy” got payoffs or had meetings to facilitate Hunter’s payoffs. But this information, true or false, is certainly something voters should weigh. And they can include the reporting standards of the Post and whether their potential bias against Biden is equivalent to four years of sometimes false reporting by the Leftist media which shows their bias against Trump every day.
The short Boston Globe article seems good from a bias point of view. It is mostly inconsequential because there are all sorts of reasons why a reporter wouldn’t want his byline used, but the ultimate decision about publishing is the publisher’s, not an employee’s. I would have liked more clarity on why the Post reporter didn’t want to be associated with the article. Could it be that his sense of journalistic standards was being violated? I think that is a fine reason, but one which doesn’t seem to bother several hundred NY Times, Boston Globe, Washington Post, and Associated Press journalists.
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/960483034476840
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*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!