This article is a throwback to sexist coverage that used to dominate news in the good old days. Here we have a sexpot American businesswoman, living in London, who had an affair with a much older Boris Johnson, then London’s mayor. They describe her in this article as a “former model” who “declined to answer–nine times–whether she had an affair…” This sounds like bullying and victim-shaming. She also wouldn’t say if she “loved” Johnson and her apartment had a “pole for dancing,” which implies she is a stripper. Pretty sexist stuff. But I guess if the woman is perceived as Conservative having an affair with another Conservative, all is fair.
But what struck me about this article was the description of London’s current Mayor, who has opened up an inquiry into the financial spending of former Mayor Johnson. Sounds to me like this is a politically motivated investigation.
Now, we can’t compare American politics with British politics, and the laws are different, etc. But still, it seems like the press is okay with Liberal Mayor Sadiq Khan actually investigating former Mayor Boris Johnson, but when current President Trump calls for an investigation of former VP Biden, a Democrat, that is causing a Constitutional crisis. The double standard is interesting.
*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!