“The NRA says your crazy ex can have a gun,” is the title of the latest anti-gun opinion piece in the Globe.
Having someone’s “ex” determine whether they can keep their guns should not be the basis of denying the Constitutional right to bear arms. But the writer claims that this right is determined by the NRA when in fact the right is in the Constitution. The NRA is only being a “good citizen” in protecting our rights.
It would be like saying that the ACLU is allowing Nazis to march in Skokie, Illinois. But for the millenials out there, you probably don’t get that reference. You see, many years ago, the ACLU used to support free speech. Those days are long gone, but it was a worthwhile endeavor followed for many years until recently when the group joined “The Resistance.”
I would reluctantly allow a judge to review the mental health of a citizen and, with strong evidence, to allow society to take away their right to own a gun. But this would be a drastic step. Better would be ways to prevent mass killings that don’t infringe on citizens’ rights.
But I’ve heard that some of the new anti-gun laws are written in a way that allows a judge to take away these rights without the ability for the gun owner to defend him or herself. That seems unfair and overly broad.
I know the Left is turning into an anti-Free Speech movement, but for those Leftists out there who still believe in that ideal, use the same standard to evaluate free speech rights with gun rights. In this article, the author argues that “stalkers” should not be allowed to have guns, even if their “stalking” is on social media. So if someone is a “stalker” in the author’s definition, should society be able to take away their computer so they can’t use social media anymore?
*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!