No evidence?

No evidence?

PE Bias Grade : C

By: Allen Nitschelm on October 7, 2019 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title How one Ukrainian played his hand with Giuliani
Date 10/06/2019
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A2 )
Syndicated From New York Times
Journalist Andrew E. Kramer
Andrew Higgins
Michael Schwirtz
Article Summary

Article explores Guiliana’s relationship with former Ukrainian prosecutor.

Share This Story

Rudy Giuliani is a private citizen, and as an attorney, his client is President Trump. There is nothing wrong with Giuliani doing his own investigation into whatever he wants. If he wants to find Bigfoot, he can travel to Saskatchewan and interview locals.

Today’s article seeks to discredit Giuliani’s source, one of the former prosecutors in Ukraine. I am not going to follow the specifics for several reasons, but I want to call attention to the Boston Globe’s / New York Times characterization that there is “no evidence” that the Bidens did anything wrong. I think the journalists are purposely misusing the English language to build their impeachment case against Trump while protecting a vulnerable point, the alleged corruption of former VP Joe Biden. And the word is “evidence.”

“There is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden or his son in Ukraine” the article asserts.

Here is another instance of the misuse of this word: “Ukrainian officials deny such claims, and no evidence supports this idea.” This relates to information Ukraine might have provided to Hillary Clinton’s campaign related to Paul Manafort.

There is plenty of evidence. Evidence does not establish guilt, however. So the paper could say that the allegations have not been proven. That is certainly true. But there is plenty of “evidence.” And how could a reporter make such a definitive statement? Is the reporter privy to “all” evidence that is available? Does he see classified documents? Has he interviewed every witness? Blanket statements like this fall into the realm of OPINION.

Compare this use of the word evidence to the use by Adam Schiff during the Mueller investigation. Now, Schiff is not a newspaper reporter, but he is an attorney and he knows the meaning of words. He repeatedly said that he had “more than circumstantial evidence” that the Trump campaign colluded with Russia. I guess the Mueller team didn’t think to ask Schiff about it because they found none.

If having your no-experience son get a $50,000 monthly job for an oil oligarch while your VP father is representing the United States to the country is not evidence, then the word has lost its meaning.

The Globe could instead write that “Joe Biden and his son are presumed innocent of criminal wrongdoing by our criminal justice system,” but that wouldn’t sound as good as implying that they are absolutely innocent and there is not a shred of any evidence to the contrary, as Joe Biden keeps declaring. I think the media believes Biden, but there is no evidence to do so.


Author Rating

Rating: 4.0/10.


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: How one Ukrainian played his hand with Giuliani

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: 4.0/10.