Media working hard to protect Biden from himself

Media working hard to protect Biden from himself

PE Bias Grade : B-

By: Allen Nitschelm on August 28, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Biden: Trump ‘rooting for more violence’ as Wis. roiled
Date 08/28/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A9 )
Syndicated From New York Times
Journalist Katie Glueck
Reid J. Epstein
Thomas Kaplan
Article Summary

Trump and Biden clash over defunding police and mob violence.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe published an article today which stated as fact that Joe Biden does not want to defund the police. This is contradicted by the video evidence of him agreeing with a questioner who asked about this issue directly at what seemed to be a Biden virtual “town hall” type event. I wrote about this inconsistency last month here: (There is a link to the video backup in this piece.)

It is possible that despite what Biden said, he misspoke and does not want to defund the police. So I did a little more research and Biden has talked about increasing funding in order to provide additional services (like social workers) versus taking that from police budgets.

If Biden misspoke during the interview, then he should publicly state so and if he apologizes and takes it back, he could assert that he is against defunding police. But that, of course, would make his position so clear that many Antifa and Black Lives Matter activists might start protesting his future appearances. What Biden can’t do, if he wants to have any shot at winning in November, is to alienate his base. And there is no question that a large percentage (perhaps even a majority) of the Democrat voters want police departments to be cut back and have those monies put towards more “social justice” programs.

What the media can’t do is engage in wishful thinking, as in, ‘I wish Biden hadn’t said that’ and then ignore that he did. That is covering up the truth and is a clear disservice to readers and the public.

It is also true that many Democrat elected officials at the local and state levels have supported “defund the police” efforts, including at several major cities like NY and LA. And Joe Biden’s running mate, Kamala Harris, apparently supported the “defunding” efforts in LA, despite having been a former prosecutor and Attorney General in California.

If Biden were to walk back his statement of support, Trump could continue to make the charge that “Joe Biden’s Party” or “leaders in the Democratic Party” continue to support either eliminating police and starting over, or taking money from police departments to fund other programs. So this won’t change the trajectory of the debate, and Biden has to live within his Party. After all, he did accept their nomination for President.

The mainstream news media is supposed to be independent and non-partisan in their coverage, but today’s article falsely gives a pass to Biden, saying that he does not support defunding despite the video evidence to the contrary. This is poor and misleading reporting, and I can only think it is purposeful. Every political reporter must have seen the Trump ads attacking Biden on this front, and they probably watched the RNC which made this charge publicly too. For them to dismiss it without first getting some retraction from the Biden campaign is journalistic malfeasance.

I come back to this topic again because of today’s article, but also because “law and order” is going to be a central issue in the presidential campaign. Joe Biden’s media allies want Biden to remain popular with the Far Left (hence his alliances with Bernie, the Squad and AOC) while the DNC had nothing to say about the street violence, arson, looting and rioting during their week-long convention. The Republicans made their position clear that they support law enforcement, the rule of law, and peaceful protests. You can’t have a fair justice system without police, otherwise you have vigilante justice.

Several months ago, Trump made the statement that if the Democrats in charge did not stop the looting and violence, the “shooting” would start. The media determined that Trump was saying that law enforcement would start shooting, but what he was talking about was business and property owners stepping in to protect themselves and their things if the police were not going to do their job. And in Kenosha, WI, we apparently saw a manifestation of not allowing the police to stop riots with two people shot and a third wounded. This is a terrible tragedy but one that could be predicted, and was by President Trump.


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: 6.0/10.


Reader Ratings:

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: Biden: Trump ‘rooting for more violence’ as Wis. roiled

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: 6.0/10.