Nevertheless, she expired

Nevertheless, she expired

PE Bias Grade : B-

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

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title In the fight, but out of the running
Date 03/06/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Jazmine Ulloa
Jess Bidgood
Laura Krantz
Victoria McGrane
Article Summary

Sen. Elizabeth Warren drops out of race, two days after Boston Globe endorsement.

Share This Story

[Warren Reports #66A-2020: Elizabeth Warren departs the presidential race disappointed: “I really thought we could do it.’’
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=5b337a4a-10bc-49ec-862f-feb3387c5753&appid=1165

#66B-2020: With policy impact, a winner
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=c20c9329-3176-4c9c-8cbf-a4231b3e1025&appid=1165

#66C-2020: For women, senator’s exit a sad but all-too-familiar finish
https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=f8fefbe8-ee1f-4a3a-894e-f50bd52263d4&appid=1165]

Today ends the long-running Warren Report series with a trio of articles making excuses for Elizabeth Warren’s demise in the Democratic Presidential contest.

Warren entered the race early, having decided not to challenge Hillary Clinton in 2016, and wanted to get a jump on the competition for 2020. But her campaign had many serious flaws in both its vessel and its message. Yet the “progressive” true believers were hooked, including New England’s largest newspaper, the Boston Globe.

The Globe eventually endorsed Warren, weeks after she had received the support of other Liberal media organizations, but it was too late to make any difference. The Globe held off on its endorsement prior to the New Hampshire primary for some strange reason, perhaps because the polls for Warren were so poor and the Globe didn’t want to endorse her and see them both come in third or fourth. New Hampshire had been Warren’s “firewall” but the narrative quickly swiveled to Massachusetts on Super Tuesday, but even then her surrogates were claiming she didn’t need to win here either because she was in it for the long-haul. To the Warren campaign, “long” can now be defined as two days.

The candidate again blamed sexism, and also racism, for her political suicide. This is despite lots of Democratic voters calmly and rationally explaining why they wouldn’t support her. We might call this “reverse-reverse sexism” where women didn’t vote for Warren because they thought others wouldn’t vote for Warren because they were sexist. So the sexism transferred from the sexist to the non-sexist, with the underlying cause still sexism.

But this is a fantasy narrative. What Warren and her supporters should do is examine the Warren campaign, from the candidate, to her background, to her stated policies, and stop making excuses for serious flaws in all three.

How could you have such an accomplished woman taken down by two old, white men?

Well, both men had loads more experience than Warren, who became a Democratic Senator in a Blue state in 2012, and has had a lackluster Senatorial career since then, accomplishing nothing. Her only public policy win was the Consumer Financial Protection Board, something she worked on prior to her election.

There were over 20 Democratic presidential candidates, and most were men. But many prominent and highly successful men have also dropped out. Two of them were billionaires. Was “reverse sexism” to blame? Say there were six women out of 25 candidates. Wouldn’t just odds dictate that a woman is unlikely to be in the top two? And like it or not, most contenders are men because men have been in politics longer than women. They have more experience. That isn’t “sexism” that is fact.

When Bernie lost to Hillary in 2016, was it reverse sexism? So how could the Democratic primary vote for Hillary in 2016 and then suddenly turn sexist in 2020? (The same argument can be made for alleged racism questions when the entire country elected Barack Obama twice.)

So her inexperience was an issue, her preachy personality was another, and then her far Left agenda was a third. And a fourth was her inauthenticity. And a fifth was her lies to further her career. A sixth was her poor campaign decisions, from foregoing PACs (later rescinded), to not having large donor events (earlier accepted), to putting staff in states she would end up never competing in, to lying about who would pay for her Medicare for All plan (never the middle class, not a single penny), to misleading the public about the cost of her wealth tax (just two cents on multi-millionaires! Just six cents on billionaires!).

Had Bernie not been in the race, perhaps the progressive base would have adopted her to take on Biden or Bloomberg (the recently elected President of American Samoa). But against Bernie, an authentic Socialist, why would people want to vote for a Fake Capitalist? And authenticity questions underlined her biographical sketchiness in which she claimed to be a victim of sexism in the workplace, and then claimed to be a minority to get ahead in the workplace.

Today’s three Warren articles (not including an opinion column on the news pages as the fourth) are typical Warren Report articles with supportive imagery and quotes from allies. The Boston Globe did not give voters an unbiased view of this candidate and their endorsement of her is an example of why mixing news and editorial are bad for journalism. Had they been tougher on Warren and not allied themselves with her, perhaps the race would have been much different today.

And so this is the last in our Warren Report series. It should be interesting to see how the Globe continues its coverage of the Democrat Presidential primary with just two candidates remaining. Will the Globe support Biden as the consensus “moderate,” someone who is experiencing early onset dementia, or will it go for Bernie, the Socialist who sees everything wrong with America and wants us to emulate the failed economies of the USSR, Venezuela, and Cuba?

——=——

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/795559967635815

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/

 

Author Rating

Rating: 6.0/10.

Description

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: In the fight, but out of the running

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

Subject

Rating: 6.0/10.

Description