I love how the Boston Globe covers every single Left-Wing protest, march, disturbance, or complaint. Today’s version is a story about the poor people on temporary visas who left their countries to come here, expected to return when the crisis was over.
The “temporary” status of the program is right in the name, but it is glossed over as we read about how these immigrants created a new life here in America and are distressed and upset that their status is being questioned. Maybe they don’t know what the word “temporary” means.
If Democrats want to protect these people, and the “dreamers” that are probably most of their kids, then they should find a compromise with President Trump to close these future loopholes. He offered a compromise well over a year ago during his State of the Union address. He wanted funds for the wall and wanted an end to chain migration and visa lotteries, and he offered to permanently legalize most of the dreamers.
Funny how the Democrats have dropped that entire issue like a hot potato. All I read about was the poor dreamers for like six months and now…nothing.
These people are being used as political pawns by the Democrats. They don’t want a solution to these problems, they want to keep them alive for 2020. It is outrageous. But here is the Globe’s article, to stoke anger and fear among their readers at the poor treatment these “temporary” visitors are receiving. The Globe should be bringing this issue to the state’s Democratic contingent and demanding action from them.
*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!