Public Editor (MA) has concluded that our years-long mission to reform journalism, starting with the Boston Globe, has been a resounding success! Join us in issuing self-congratulations to the publisher and its widespread and diverse staff whose tireless efforts have resulted in the Boston Globe issuing a statement of contrition, which we quote below:
After reading your articles and seeing the poor grades you gave our reporters for their news coverage, we have decided you were right after all and we have a plan to turn things around 180-degrees. Thank you for your tireless work and accurate editorial commentary! Your work will go down in history as helping to turn around the “failing” Boston Globe and return it to its once-proud journalistic history!
Rooting out the rot and eliminating so many bad habits that the staff has developed over the prior many years cannot happen overnight. We have a plan to implement all necessary changes in less than two months. As our plan rolls out, I’m sure we will continue to make some mistakes, but slowly and surely we will be on the path towards journalistic integrity. We make this commitment to you and your readers: we will start to actively practice professional, responsible journalism no later than January 21, 2021.
By that date, we will no longer dishonor the office of the President of the United States, making unfounded and unsubstantiated accusations against him at every turn. Instead, we will give him the deference his office deserves and the benefit of the doubt whenever possible.
Asking the President to provide “proof” when offering an opinion will no longer be the norm. Instead, good intentions will be assumed unless it can be proven otherwise. We will stop using terms like “unsubstantiated,” “false,” “misleading,” “untrue,” “mistakenly,” “unproven,” “unsupported,” and all forms of the verb “lie” without cause and actual (not imagined) proof.
In addition, we will stop ascribing abhorrent personal beliefs through innuendo and group-think. We have come to realize that someone isn’t a “racist” because they refuse to condemn racism every time when asked several times each day. Instead, we will take the President at his word when he says he isn’t a racist unless there is actual proof otherwise. And we acknowledge that in President Trump’s case, there was never any actual proof. Mea culpa.
It is time for our country to come together, and to that end, we will seek a harmonious and mutually beneficial relationship with the leaders of the House and administration in Washington. The constant attacking of our political leaders by the Globe must and will come to an end. Unless, of course, the Republicans keep control of the Senate, in which case we reserve the right to neuter Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. After all, some things are just more important than our integrity.
Instead of being against everything that the administration is doing, we will become partners, or if you will, cheerleaders, for everything that the administration plans. This will include any and all steps to eliminate “climate change,” allowing Iran into the nuclear club, giving China free access to our markets once again without reciprocation, supporting our European alliances while the Europeans scale back their funding of their NATO commitments, and spending much more money domestically that we don’t have and can never pay back (we can cite plenty of well-respected economists who see no harm in perpetually rising deficits.)
Most importantly, the upper-middle-class in this country is part of the problem. They are systemically racist and we need to increase taxes on those who are successful, but not go so far as to confiscate the wealth of the super-rich billionaire class. That would be a step way too far.
On a more serious note, I wanted to thank all my readers for their time and contributions, from personal notes to Facebook comments.
This project was an attempt to show that journalism has taken a turn for the worse, abandoning its core tenets of presenting news in an unbiased, even-handed manner while keeping opinions out of news articles and reserving them for the Op-Ed pages. I documented hundreds of examples of biased reporting in the Globe, which ended up with an overall grade for news-reporting bias of a “C.”
I have no doubt that under the Biden administration, the Globe will certainly treat “Sleepy Joe” with kid-gloves and not subject him to the same level of scrutiny (or outright abuse) that President Trump suffered. It is a shame that the journalistic news media has collectively decided that the short-term gain of attacking President Trump to deny him a second term is worth the long-term harm to their profession. President Trump may be gone, but our need for unbiased journalism will remain but has now been forever tarnished. Trump supporters will no longer believe media stories given their biased coverage, from what they actually wrote to what they willfully ignored.
While my website will be decommissioned, I believe the Facebook page will remain so readers can remain in touch there, or email me directly at [email protected]
Let’s all hope the Coronavirus pandemic is going to be gone soon, and history will likely show that President Trump’s leadership on speeding up the vaccine saved countless lives and greatly shortened the economic harm. And let’s hope the Republicans have a great candidate in 2024 who can easily defeat Kamala Harris. Let’s also hope the Republicans turn out in droves in Georgia to reject Socialism and the transformation of America that the Far Left promised if they gained full power.
*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!