As if the Boston Globe doesn’t have an agenda against Trump, now the organization is inventing a medical “news service” called Stat News which investigates and reports on medical stories. Their website looks pretty benign until you actually click on some of the links. For example, under the “Topics” tab, you have biotechnology, cancer, and…wait for it…Trump. I kid you not.
Their “about” page reveals the link to the owner, which is the same ownership as the Boston Globe. They say that they share content and “complement” one another. No kidding. Here’s the link: https://www.statnews.com/about/
Under the “Trump” tab is a long list of critical articles, including such scientific medical topics as immigration. Actually, there are two immigration articles.
Clearly, the editors at “Stat” have been given their marching orders from Red Sox owner John Henry, and they are dutifully slamming Trump at every chance.
So in the Boston Globe today, the Stat article is about psychiatrists who want to psychoanalyze Donald Trump without interviewing him, a violation of the AMA’s rules. The chief proponent of this, Dr. Leonard Glass of Harvard Medical School (the institution that discriminates against Asian applicants, if you read other parts of the Boston Globe), has written a book called “The dangerous case of Donald Trump: Psychiatrists and Mental Health experts Assess a President.” Sounds to me like Dr. Glass needs to be censured for publishing this book, but I’m not part of the AMA. Still, seems like for Dr. Glass, the horse has left the barn long ago.
The article does state that he faces an “uphill” battle because the AMA recently expanded the rule, not constricted it. I guess mentioning and quoting several supporters of the change and no one on the other side is considered unbiased reporting at Stat, and that I’m sure is fine with the Globe editors too.
The fact that the Globe would print this biased article meant to garner support to overturn the AMA’s long-established policy for ideological reasons alone gives this article an F. Most of the bias is in the decision to cover this topic at all.
*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!