Both candidates did a good job articulating their opinions at the last presidential debate.
Donald Trump is the candidate for capitalism, personal freedom, freedom from mob attacks and mob rule, freedom of speech, freedom to own guns, freedom to make money, freedom to wear or not wear masks, freedom of religion, freedom from Mideast oil cartels, freedom from Al Qaeda terrorists, and freedom from intrusive government oversight or control over every aspect of your life.
Joe Biden is also for freedom. He is for freedom to have a late-term or partial-birth abortion, freedom to stop driving your gas-guzzling car, freedom of eating any vegetable you find tasty and not having to look at the slaughter of innocent animals at your local supermarket, freedom to avoid having to listen to other people’s opinions that you might find upsetting, freedom from having debate on college campuses, freedom from having crazy people question the scientific consensus on any issue, and freedom from having to explain how his son Hunter grew filthy rich trading on his father’s influence. If Biden gets elected, we will enjoy the freedom of one-party government and we can get rid of these pesky elections once and for all. We can eliminate the tyranny of the minority from the Senate or the Electoral College or the Supreme Court. Ultimately, we will have the freedom to decide which dialect of Chinese we want to learn, or perhaps we can study Russian instead.
Joe Biden was correct on one point: we do face an existential threat. That threat isn’t climate change, however, it is Socialism. And it is about whether we are going to keep America strong as the beacon of democracy and freedom for the rest of the world, or if we are going to give up and let China became the number one economic and military superpower in our children’s lifetimes.
Today’s Boston Globe article discusses climate change, and how Biden revealed for perhaps the first time on national TV that the Far Left is controlling the Biden campaign and Biden has signed on to eliminate fossil fuels, if not right after he is elected, than within 10 or 20 years. Either timeframe would be an economic body-blow to this country.
The other day, I wrote about the Boston Globe’s and the mainstream media’s constant refrain that President Trump is a liar. This is an opinion of these journalists, one that is not widely shared among Trump supporters. But the Left believes it is true and their news articles now routinely refer to Trump’s statements as lies. The link to my first article is here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/the-medias-trope/
Today, there is another good example. The front-page article under discussion states this:
Pressed for his policy in the debate, Trump claimed he has “so many different programs’’ to address climate change but offered no solutions beyond an executive order he signed to support a World Economic Forum tree-planting initiative. He attacked renewable energy and said, falsely, that retrofitting buildings to make them energy efficient would eliminate windows. (emphasis mine)
Trump’s statement on climate change and retrofitting buildings occurred near the end of the debate. And President Trump clearly says that retrofitting buildings is about making windows smaller. He then says that the environmentalists would love to have no windows. That doesn’t mean that retrofitting suggests not having windows. He is making the point that having smaller windows is ridiculous and he does not support this retrofitting of millions of buildings. He is reducing the Left’s argument to the ridiculous, which is a common debating technique. It is a similar argument to saying that some spending bill “will only cost a cup of coffee a day.”
Here is the transcript of what Trump said, and you be the judge if he “falsely [claimed] that retrofitting buildings…would eliminate windows” as the journalist says (https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-joe-biden-final-presidential-debate-transcript-2020):
Donald Trump: (16:57)
… his environmental plan, do you know developed it? AOC plus three, they know nothing about the climate. I mean, she’s got a good line of stuff, but she knows nothing about the climate and they’re all hopping through hoops for AOC plus three. Look, their real plan cost a hundred trillion dollars. If we had the best year in the history of our country for a hundred years, we would not even come close to a number like that. When he says buildings, they want to take buildings down because they want to make bigger windows into smaller windows. As far as they’re concerned, if you had no window, it would be a lovely thing.
So this claim of Trump’s lying is actually an example of the media lying to bias its readers against the President. Again. And so it pushes the negative narrative against Trump.
What we need is unbiased news coverage of both candidates and then voters can get a true picture of their policies and proposals and vote according to the vision that they support. Instead, we are getting a false picture when the media says that Trump is lying about what the Democrats propose, trying to reinforce their narrative that Trump is a liar and therefore you should vote for Biden. This narrative is very similar to “Trump is a racist” so you should vote for Biden, or “Trump cheats on his taxes” so you should vote for Biden, etc.
Voters are going to need to filter out the media bias in order to form their own opinion about this choice.
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/962873687571108
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!