The Boston Globe covered House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s remarks at a Northeastern conference of women, interviewed by NPR. The Speaker was rallying the Liberal troops in her political speech, making the absurd claim that our country is not going to survive another four years of Donald Trump as President.
Gee, I thought we wouldn’t survive the first four years? What happened?
Coronovirus notwithstanding, our country has thrived under Donald Trump and having Hillary (or Bernie or Joe) would have resulted in less economic development, more jobs sent overseas, more illegal immigration and crime, and likely more attacks on our Constitutional rights guaranteed by the First and Second Amendments.
The Left supports free speech, so long as it is in agreement with their views. Speech that suggests traditional morals or lifestyles is now “hate” speech; speech that conforms to religious views is likewise.
Democrats are against big money in politics, and they want to prevent it. Yet they allowed Mike Bloomberg onto the debate stage when it seemed like he might be the most credible opponent of President Trump. So spending billions to influence elections is not allowed, except when it is in support of the Left’s policies and candidates.
I happened to watch a little of the Bernie-Joe debate that ran Sunday night, and these two guys are in major agreement on the major policy positions. Bernie wants a Green New Deal, and Joe wants it too, but we have to go slowly and incrementally. Bernie wants Medicare for All, and Joe wants it too, but let’s take baby steps to get there. All of Joe’s positions that conflicted with the Left’s orthodoxy have been apologized for and modified accordingly.
But perhaps the worst position of the Democrats is their adherence to identity politics. Joe Biden pledged to have a woman running mate. (I wonder if London is taking odds now on who it might be?) Bernie seemed to agree, saying it would be likely he would pick a woman too. Nancy Pelosi said she tries to support female candidates “whenever she can.”
If the Left believes that we should be picking leaders who check off certain boxes, rather than selecting the best available candidates given all their pluses and minuses, there will always be questions surrounding their leaders as to their competency.
Coverage of political events, like this Pelosi speech, is biased in the Globe because it reports whatever the speaker says uncritically. Yet when Republicans give political speeches, the Leftist media can’t wait to disagree, belittle, “fact-check,” or just claim the Republicans are lying.
We are done with our Warren Report series, since our Native Daughter has withdrawn from the race, but this article is oddly reminiscent of many from that series. It is a positive review of Pelosi’s appearance, asking no tough questions, giving no counter-arguments, just reporting on what Pelosi said, including slurs against Republicans and Donald Trump, and reporting this as news. Yet there are never any articles in a similar vein about administration officials giving speeches. For example, did the Globe cover any of the addresses by Republicans at the national Conservative conference a couple of weeks ago?
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/803315593526919
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!