In some great verbal jiu-jitsu, the Boston Globe today explains that while the “right-wing” media and “Republicans” have “long promoted a narrative” that the Obama administration was using the Justice Department and FBI to target the Trump campaign and help Hillary Clinton, this simply isn’t so.
And the reason is because they kept it quiet. Had they gone public with their biased investigation, it could have hurt Trump in the election. Of course, public knowledge of the politicization of the election by the Obama administration could also have led people to conclude that they should support Trump because of obvious illegal (and unethical) interference, but that’s probably just another “right-wing” narrative.
What the “Left-wing” media seems to not want to admit–but does so in this article–is that the Obama administration was spying on the Trump campaign to help their ally, Hillary Clinton. So their admission and excuse is this:
In the Russia investigation, FBI officials did take aggressive steps such as obtaining a secret wiretap to eavesdrop on a former Trump adviser. But they also moved quietly, deploying informants and an undercover agent in part to keep the existence of the investigation from becoming public and affecting the 2016 election.
Democrat Obama, having endorsed Hillary Clinton, then unleashed his Justice Department and FBI to spy on the Trump campaign. They took steps “such as” a secret wiretap. Well, they did a lot more than that.
But their secret subversion was to protect themselves, not to protect Donald Trump’s election chances. They didn’t want to get caught.
And that is why, after Trump won, they targeted General Michael Flynn to get him fired. This probably resulted in numerous meetings, but we know of one around January 5th in which Obama, Biden, and other top officials met to discuss Gen. Flynn. They orchestrated a perjury trap, knowing that he had talked with the Russian ambassador but hadn’t spoken of it publicly, and caught him in a lie denying it (such a conversation by an incoming administration official would not be improper, by the way.) By getting rid of Flynn, they hoped they could force Trump from office before anyone figured out what had happened.
Dozens of Obama officials asked permission to “unmask” Flynn, so this was obviously a conspiracy.
So now, the Globe and NY Times spin this secret coup attempt into evidence that the Obama administration really wasn’t trying to hurt Trump.
That takes some chutzpah, but it fails the smell test. Nice try.
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/939779309880546
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!