[Post-Script Warren Report #67-2020]
The Boston Globe reported on the demise of Sen. Elizabeth Warren’s Democratic presidential run yesterday, and then has two follow-up articles today, breathless wondering who the Native Daughter will endorse between the two old, white men who represent the sexism and racism of our country. That Warren might not be able to choose the lesser or two evils is a distinct possibility. The article covers all the bases by speculating that Warren might not endorse either candidate until after the race has been decided. Warren might then deign to support the Democratic nominee, probably a couple of days after the Globe embarrassingly endorses the runner-up.
I guess the very good news is that we can lay to rest the ageism question, at least among Democrat primary voters. But they are still racist, homophobic, and sexist, although not nearly as much as their Republican counterparts.
Warren was a truly ineffective Senator, with nothing accomplished for this state or the country in her eight long years. Instead of suggesting that her third-place finish last Tuesday should result in her resignation and allowing someone else to take her seat, the Globe believes Warren needs to be propped up, so they continue to pander to her while making excuses for why she wouldn’t endorse anyone. And now, according to the Globe, she doesn’t have to.
You see, it would be smarter not to stick her neck out for one or the other, because then she will have less “influence” over the nominee’s pick for various positions in the new administration if his Democratic opponent wins. (That’s a mighty big “if.”) On the other hand, if Warren were to help the nominee get the nomination and then if he wins, he would owe Warren big time. But that would put pressure on Warren to take that endorsement risk, and since the Globe wants to protect her, they float this non-endorsement scenario instead.
The Globe concludes with the thought that Warren might run for President again. Just think: in 2024, after Trump’s second term ends, Warren will only be 74. If Bailey makes it that long, she might have a shot. And now she has another tall-tale she can use on the next election’s campaign trail: How she was discriminated against by being a woman in the 2020 election.
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/796370054221473
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!