No where to go but up

No where to go but up

PE Bias Grade : C

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 11, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Trump courts Black voters, but opposition is still deep
Date 02/07/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A6 )
Syndicated From Associated Press
Journalist Corey Williams
Article Summary

Media tries to reassure readers that Democrats have a lock on the African-American vote.

Share This Story

This Boston Globe article tries to tackle the issue of whether Donald Trump might pick up more of the African-American vote in 2020 than before, partly because he continues to tout how his economic policies have helped many Americans, including black Americans. During his state of the union speech, he repeated what he says on the campaign trail, that the nation has seen the lowest levels of unemployment for all of the minority groups and women.

And his speech highlighted stories of several black Americans including a Tuskegee airman who was promoted to General and who just turned 100 years old, and a young black girl who couldn’t get into a good Charter school for financial reasons, and Trump gave her a scholarship.

Trump also enacted some federal criminal justice reform legislation, which seemed to be very popular among many African-Americans. The article does mention some of these accomplishments among many others, yet quickly discounts them because polls have shown low Black support for Trump’s re-election.

Polls can be wrong, of course, and as Trump campaigns and highlights these accomplishments, voters might feel differently. But the article attempts to frame Trump’s support as pandering and recounts past issues like Charlottesville to question whether Trump really isn’t just a racist.

The Charlotteseville reference is of course quite offensive because it did not show Trump as a racist, yet that is how the media has portrayed him. So when the article repeats those false assertions by quoting Trump as saying there was “blame on both sides” and includes “white nationalists” on one side, it is erroneous. I have got to think that since Trump’s comments are widely available on video and he clearly did not praise “white nationalists,” reporters who make this mistake are either brainwashed by their own allies in the media or are being purposefully deceptive to their readers.

We learn that Trump likely got just 6% of the Black vote against Hillary Clinton. Surely he will do better given what he has accomplished and the economy, assuming things stay where they are by November. So in reality, he has nowhere to go but up. If he can get 10-15% of the Black vote, Democrats will need to replace those with other voters elsewhere just to stay even to their totals in 2016. This article highlights a potential vulnerability for the Democrats.

The article ends by criticizing Trump’s claims of higher Black employment and wages by saying that Blacks make less money than Whites. Why then wasn’t President Obama also criticized by that same yardstick? Oh, right, his economy was terrible compared to Trump’s. So if Trump does a great job building our economy, it is never going to be good enough until every group, gender, race, and sexual orientation makes on average the same money as everyone else. In other words, compared to “perfect,” Trump falls short. Very nicely done, Mr. Reporter.

The reporter is also upset at the “racial climate under Trump.” Again, our first Black president saw a worsening of the racial climate under his watch. Why isn’t Trump held to the same standard as Obama? Perhaps it is because Trump is a Republican. And of course the media has had a field day either calling him a racist, or quoting Democrats who are happy to do so on camera. No wonder our country is so divided. This division is being fanned by the partisan motivations of the Left and the media.

The article is fairly negative towards President Trump (par for the mainstream media’s course) but does point out his accomplishments and its very weak rebuttals will allow the discerning reader to grasp what is actually happening.


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: 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: Trump courts Black voters, but opposition is still deep

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.