The Boston Globe and the New York Times are using their positions of power to unfairly influence the upcoming presidential election.
It isn’t enough to allow the two candidates to present their views to the public and allow the public to weigh them, and then make their voting decision. Instead, these media organizations want to negatively characterize the Trump campaign and President Trump himself in order to make the choice for Biden more palatable.
The media has created a narrative that Trump is a racist. This is patently false, but the media reinforces it with a negative barrage of reporting, and uses very subtle suggestions to reinforce this message. In today’s article, we are told that Trump is targeting “white” voters. The evidence for this is that he is against riots and he is campaigning in swing states, some of which are mostly white. But instead of saying Trump is naturally focused on swing states, they suggest it is about race and not geography.
But that isn’t what first caught my eye in this article. It was the use of the word “false” to describe President Trump’s political attacks on Joe Biden.
Trump’s effort to revive his candidacy by blaming Biden’s party for scenes of looting and arson in American cities has jolted Biden into a more proactive posture, one that some Democrats have long urged him to adopt. The former vice president spent last week pushing back forcefully on Trump’s often false attacks, after encouragement from allies including former secretary of state John Kerry, whose 2004 presidential campaign faltered in the face of a concerted smear campaign about his Vietnam War service. (emphasis mine)
When was the last time the media said that Biden’s attacks on Trump were “false?” The media would NEVER accuse Joe Biden of making a false statement, yet they constantly pretend to “fact check” President Trump. When Trump states his opinion, they claim he does so “without evidence.” When Trump states his opinion and gives examples (in other words, evidence), they ignore the evidence.
This rang a bell because an article the day before, also syndicated from the New York Times, used the same word in a different context. (See photo 4, link to article here: https://edition.pagesuite.com/popovers/dynamic_article_popover.aspx?artguid=6d28a195-d7c0-4a85-8121-e00d54204c1d&appid=1165).
Significant unknowns also remain, especially around what voting will look like amid a pandemic, and many Democrats in particular have expressed concern about voter suppression and Trump’s false claims about mail-in voting and fraud. (emphasis mine)
The Globe has made it quite clear that it strongly supports Democratic Socialists like Elizabeth Warren, it supports rioters like Black Lives Matter and Antifa, it supports other politicians who support these groups, and it wants the Democrats to take over, raise taxes, raise spending, and drive the country into bankruptcy even faster than the current trajectory. These opinions and beliefs belong on the Editorial Pages where smart readers can just skip over to avoid.
But no, the Globe instead puts these opinions by “news journalists” right into their articles. Somehow these opinions slip by the crack editors at the Globe and make it into the paper, often on Page One.
Obviously, calling one candidate’s attacks on another as “false” is taking sides and a matter of opinion. But also notice in the example how Trump’s focus on the looting, arson, and rioting are apparently only for political gain. You see, he doesn’t really care about Americans losing their businesses (or their lives) in these Democrat-run cities. He only cares because of politics.
If the media used the same yardstick to cover Joe Biden, they would question his alliance with Bernie Sanders and ask readers to consider whether Biden is in fact beholden to the Social Democrat’s supporters. They would wonder why he doesn’t seem to want to stray too far from Delaware, and why he has never explained what Hunter Biden was doing in China with a $1 Billion hedge fund account.
They would question why so many (hundreds!) of Biden’s Democrat Party are supporting the rioting and looting and arson and violence. They would ask how Biden can claim that taxes wouldn’t rise on anyone making under $400,000 a year and still balance the budget with $4 trillion in new spending over the next decade. They would look at the math and disclose to readers that it doesn’t add up, that the promises Biden is making are simply unaffordable. They would look at what an energy-dependent America truly looks like, and how we may be going back to $4 gas, long lines at the pump, and dependency on Mideast oil.
But having voters decide the election based on what the two candidates would do is not going to help the Democrat win. To take over, Biden and his media allies need to make the election about the crass personality of Trump, about his juvenile tweets and his thin skin. It cannot be about his accomplishments or his vision, because in those areas, Trump is by far the better choice.
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/926854367839707
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!