Protecting the fragile Joe Biden

Protecting the fragile Joe Biden

PE Bias Grade : B

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 4, 2020 | Article Review, Media Criticism

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title In last pitch, Biden flashes strengths, flaws
Date 02/03/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A7 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Jazmine Ulloa
Article Summary

Boston Globe covers Joe Biden’s campaign stop in Iowa.

Share This Story

The Boston Globe obviously supports any candidate who is running in the Democrat primary over President Donald Trump, and the paper is so invested in their candidates that they treat them with kid gloves. Is that how Donald Trump will treat them if they get the nomination?

Today’s Joe Biden update repeatedly tells us how many mistakes Biden made during his last campaign appearance in Iowa but gives exactly zero examples. Zero!

Most voters who are paying any attention to the race is familiar with Biden’s pluses and minuses. But to gloss over and excuse Biden’s gaffes does not make Biden a stronger candidate, and does not help the Democrats defeat Donald Trump. Instead, it helps weaker candidates stay viable and saps the strength and resources from other primary challengers who might be better alternatives.

During the 2016 Republican primary, I supported most of the other candidates over Trump. But the process worked. Trump was not given any breaks by the media (since they mostly play for the other team) and Trump had to contrast his policies and visions with several fairly high profile Republicans. He earned the nomination fair and square.

The Globe’s favorite candidate is obviously Elizabeth Warren, and they have been trying to protect her candidacy (and promote her candidacy) from Day One. So when they tried to back up her claim to Native American heritage, they did so because they thought she could win the nomination. Yet many people would see her actions as fatal flaws that should make her drop out of the race. Then the Globe did another huge reveal when they tried to show that she got no benefit from her claims during her academic career. This they failed to do, despite declaring victory. The Globe tried to show that she was not “hired” because of her claimed minority status, but they did not address (and probably could never address) whether she received any preferential treatment while employed. But instead of sticking to the narrow claim, they broadened it to say she got no benefit whatsoever.

You might wonder whether protecting these candidates really is such a bad idea, but look at two late entries to the Democrat primary race. Both Deval Patrick and Michael Bloomberg have impressive resumes and both decided not to join the race when the time was right. Had the Globe “taken out” Elizabeth Warren and Joe Biden as poor candidates, the void might have been filled by these two (or others) who might now be looking like a great general-election alternative to President Trump.

This is yet another reason why the media should not be taking sides in our political debate. We need an independent, unbiased media to provide facts and reporting so that voters can make up their own minds. Had the process worked as it should have, Joe Biden and Elizabeth Warren would likely not be in the race now, and we would likely have a much stronger (and tested) challenger in November to President Trump.

I support Trump and plan on voting for him. But a Mike Bloomberg, Deval Patrick, or some other candidate might have been a credible challenger and offered voters a real choice. As it looks now, Donald Trump’s re-election looks like a lock against any of the candidates who are likely to be the Democratic nominee.

——=——

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/774340696424409

To reach our Facebook site in general: https://www.facebook.com/publiceditorpress/

 

Author Rating

Rating: 7.0/10.

Description

There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: In last pitch, Biden flashes strengths, flaws

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

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!

Leave A Comment

Subject

Rating: 7.0/10.

Description