The Boston Globe is completely obsessed with President Trump’s re-election in November. They want him out, and have aligned themselves with the Democrat Party to accomplish this goal. They have been trying one strategy after another, so far without success. This is the “silver lining” behind the “Wuhan Flu.” We may end up with hundreds of thousands of deaths, but if it can remove the President, perhaps it is a very small price to pay.
So this article, run appropriately on the day before April Fool’s Day, comes up with every possible criticism of the President and not one word of praise. Offering balance would diminish the message that one has to vote against President Trump in November. No mention is made of his likely opponent, of course, because then people would have to likewise look at Joe Biden’s pluses and minuses. The Globe doesn’t want readers to do that. Vote against Trump no matter who his opponent is is their argument. Very weak, very biased, and very illogical.
Just look at the headline. The case is alleged that Trump mishandled the Coronavirus, but is that logically a reason to vote against him in November? The virus should be well under control by then and the likelihood of another such outbreak is slim. They seem to happen once a decade, give or take. So to argue that Trump’s handling of this epidemic, even if you completely accept their reasoning, really has nothing to do with who to elect in 2020.
I have avoided most of the Coronavirus coverage, but apparently we are having a lot of cases in the U.S. We have a very mobile citizenship, and many Chinese immigrants, and evidently through travel to other parts of the world, carriers have inadvertently come to the U.S. and caused some major outbreaks. I’m sure this won’t be surprising considering our country does the most commerce, despite President Trump’s direct ban on flights from China early on (a very wise move, not mentioned in the Globe editorial.)
The editorial is really laughably bad. It practically criticizes Trump for parting his hair on the wrong side. Every failure is his to bear, and any successes are because of someone else (Democrats, no doubt.) It throws in the “racist” accusation, just for good measure, and is using the new Democrat talking point, that anyone who dies will be “blood” on Trump’s hands. Pathetic.
Here is how the article ends, just in case readers were wondering whether now, right in the middle of the pandemic, and just as the numbers are expected to peak, is the best time to criticize our elected leaders: “But come November, there must be a reckoning for the lives lost, and for the vast, avoidable suffering about to ensue under the president’s watch.”
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/813831052475373
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!