Joan Vennochi has some nice blinders over her eyes.
She thinks it is time to remake Sen. Elizabeth Warren. Warren, a socialist, needs to be rebranded as a moderate. This will be tough and I don’t think it is really doable. She has been described as similar in philosophy to Bernie for months if not years. She has the same flaw as Bernie Sanders, which is that most Americans won’t vote to elect a socialist. Sanders essentially ran as a joke in 2016 except many Democrat Party voters weren’t in on it. They are still clueless.
But first, she needs some defense against her false Native American claims. The Leftist media, led by the New York Times, insists the issue is over because she “apologized” for it. Now this explanation is being picked up by Boston Globe editorial columnist Joan Vennochi.
Vennochi is a lightweight, seemingly deciding issues based on identity politics, in this case, gender. She joins other Boston Globe Op-Ed writers of a similar ilk who are informed mostly by race. I don’t know if the Globe has a gay-themed writer, but they probably do. Is the transgender slot filled yet?
So Vennochi’s gender blinders are firmly covering her eyes as she declares that Warren is past her false claims of being an American Indian because she has “apologized.” If you want to listen to what Warren actually said, click on the Times article and video link here: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/19/us/politics/elizabeth-warren-native-american.html
Saying you’ve made mistakes is no apology. Well, I take that back. She is certainly sorry her falsehoods were discovered. She has “made mistakes.” I think she is referring to several mistakes she made in trying to cover up her lies, including the false claim (perpetuated by the reporters at the Globe, believe it or not) that she received “no benefit” from her willful acts; and the botched job of rolling out her DNA results which proved no link and suggested at best a tenuous one.
Vennochi wants to put all this behind our Native Daughter because she is so fantastic. Remember, “she persisted” and she “has a plan” for everything. But Vennochi just glosses over Warren’s false claims because she wants to minimize them and what voters will think of them. Vennochi says Warren “checked a box she didn’t deserve to check”. Well, Warren was checking that box for several years across several employers. This wasn’t a solitary mistake or just a simple lapse in judgment. This was a calculated scam to try to get into and keep an Ivy-League teaching position by claiming minority status.
I think Warren’s false claims are a real liability that some voters will see as a disqualifier. and her “apology” is incredibly inadequate. She admitted to no specifics, she didn’t explain what she did or why it was wrong. In fact, she could have been talking about almost anything. That the NYT characterized this as an apology for years of falsely claiming a minority background is just an attempt by a Liberal organization to help Warren. What ever happened to news organizations vetting candidates and asking them tough questions? Those days are long gone at the Times…and the Globe.
*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!