Media mourns firing of another deep state official

Media mourns firing of another deep state official

PE Bias Grade : D

By: Allen Nitschelm on April 6, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Officials whose actions hurt Trump tend to get fired
Date 04/05/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A13 )
Syndicated From Washington Post
Journalist Aaron Blake
Article Summary

The Inspector General who allowed the whistleblower complaint to proceed gets terminated.

Share This Story

In an interesting twist on injecting personal opinions into news reporting, Washington Post reporter Aaron Blake, syndicated in the Boston Globe, does a “news analysis” piece on the firing of intelligence community Inspector General Michael Atkinson. He is, “of course,” the guy who allowed a so-called whistleblower to submit a complaint outside his department, which related to the conduct of the President of the United States.

This obviously was not a “whistleblower” complaint, but the “deep state” worked its magic and used the laws which label approved and legitimate complaints to be forwarded to Congress. In this case, Atkinson moved the process along despite President Trump not serving as an employee in the Intelligence Community and thus not under the power or purview of the Inspector General.

That the “whistleblower” then met with staff in Adam Schiff’s office, with Schiff publicly lying about the meeting, and then refusing to allow the “whistleblower” to testify despite insisting the month before that he must be allowed to do so, is all water under the bridge by the media. They participated and helped run this hoax, and now they lament the firing of one of the key actors. Too bad Trump can’t get rid of the entire Congressional Democratic caucus for their participation as well.

People probably will forget why it was so damaging to allow this “whistleblower” complaint to proceed, and today’s poor Boston Globe article does not illuminate the long-term harm this has done to our government. Future presidents will no longer enjoy the privilege of confidentiality on their calls with foreign leaders. They will have to carefully screen who listens to calls because “career officials” might take exception to what is said and decide to leak it to the IG or Congress. And foreign leaders will no longer be able to speak candidly to the President for fear of any conversation being leaked or released in the future. Thank you, Speaker Pelosi; thank you, Chairman Schiff; and good riddance, IG Atkinson.

The article doesn’t just report on Atkinson’s firing. Instead, it tries to weave a tale that anyone who crosses Trump “tend” to get fired. The word “tend” is interesting because it allows such a generalization to be made with no proof and just anecdotal evidence. But the basic premise, I guess, is that people who work in the Trump administration shouldn’t be let go if they disagree, embarrass, or stab the president in the back. And the article uses former FBI Director James Comey as the first example.

Comey was the guy in charge of the illegal FISA warrants that had dozens of errors and lies. Another report I just read said that almost all of the FISA warrants over the past few years contain numerous errors as well. The conclusion of the article was that the faulty FISA warrants were not against candidate and then President-elect Trump specifically, but were just general incompetence by the FBI. So perhaps the FBI was not motivated by partisanship, they are just willing to cheat the court system to get things like secret warrants to spy on Americans. Not sure that is better.

Here is an example of the biased reasoning used in this article:

Without the whistle-blower complaint, lawmakers might never have been given the chance to decide whether this rose to the level of being corrupt and worthy of removal from office. And really, that’s what Atkinson’s role in this was: passing along that valid and concerning information, and letting Congress decide. Trump may regard this all as a ‘‘hoax,’’ but his efforts to dismiss the whistle-blower complaint as a fictitious nothingburger have been contradicted by both the evidence and his fellow Republicans.

In other words, the Congress and the country wasted a good three months on the impeachment hoax, and the reporter thinks this was a good thing. Anything to try to damage President Trump, I guess.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of 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:

To reach our Facebook site in general:


Author Rating

Rating: 2.0/10.


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: Officials whose actions hurt Trump tend to get fired

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


Rating: 2.0/10.