The Globe recently ran a story about how much “goodwill” former President Obama had as he “broke his silence” to criticize President Trump about climate change (See our coverage here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/the-paragon-of-goodwill/).
Today, as the Coronavirus is expected to peak in several top hot spots, the Globe runs another Obama surrogate, this time criticizing the Trump administration’s response. Former HHS Secretary Kathleen Sebelius says the Trump administration “basically wasted two months.”
This type of criticism, in the middle of the worst week for the disease so far in the U.S., is uncalled for, unwarranted, unprofessional, and outrageous. But nobody would hear about it except for Sebelius’ family if the media weren’t a willing partner in publishing this “news.”
The media is trying to turn this crisis into an opening for Joe Biden to give him a chance against Trump in November. So they are laying the groundwork for the Democrats to criticize everything Trump does and did to fight the virus. This is very obvious partisanship and the media is the willing conduit.
When Trump banned flights from China very early on, he was a racist. Now, he didn’t act fast enough.
When Trump suggested he might quarantine NYC, he was a fascist. Now, he didn’t mobilize the federal government to take over states’ roles fast enough.
Some people remember that we are a nation of states and states have rights and responsibilities. A large federal bureaucracy is not necessarily the answer to every national problem. Sometimes, it is better, safer, faster, and more effective to have 50 solutions, all locally controlled and directed.
In fact, if Trump had insisted on a national response, the Democratic mayors and governors would be livid, and then Trump would really be blamed for anything except a perfect outcome. And for the federal government, this would be a very dangerous precedent. And the way bureaucracies work (or don’t work, as the case may be), we might find out too late that a one-size-fits-all Federal response is not the best or fastest way to get results.
It also helps no one to criticize the Trump administration’s conduct during the middle of the pandemic. This wasn’t just a “novel” Coronavirus…it is a “novel” crisis. We are dealing with a new sort of problem, one that our country has never faced before.
Let me also say that the specific criticism is completely illogical. Sebelius is complaining that the Trump administration should have ordered respirators, masks, etc., in massive quantities in January, before we knew the outbreak was going to be so bad. And if it had, then fewer supplies would have been available for others to order. The problem isn’t that we didn’t “order” enough ventilators in February, the problem is that we don’t have enough ventilators. If this were merely a logistics problem, hospitals had weeks to place their orders before the need was expected to be urgent.
The Coronavirus disease is evidently not that dangerous, relative to other potential illnesses like Ebola. It apparently is about as deadly as the flu, but with no vaccine developed yet. And it seems to affect the elderly and infirm much more so than most diseases (unlike the flu.)
So by isolating and quarantining, we accomplish two goals. First, we slow the spread of the disease, buying us time to research and perfect treatments, and to prevent overwhelming our medical system. And second, we try very hard to prevent infections among our elderly population. These are both great reasons, but they are both temporary. In a couple of weeks, or maybe a few weeks, or something of that magnitude, we should be re-opening our economy and looking for more specific ways to safeguard our elderly afterwards.
Do not let the partisan politicians use the media to turn this into another “impeachment hoax.” The media is already trying. The Boston Globe has already run an editorial telling people that because of Trump’s response so far, he should not be re-elected in November. I kid you not, we covered their editorial here: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/media-coverage-is-all-about-november/
The media would love voters to judge Trump alone, and not compare him to his competitor. That isn’t how elections work. There is a specific person Trump will be running against, and the two competitors should be compared and contrasted. Notice how the media can urge a vote against Trump no matter who his opponent is. That simply doesn’t make any sense, does it?
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/817345448790600
To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/
*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!