That is some correction

That is some correction

PE Bias Grade : B+

By: Allen Nitschelm on January 6, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Analysts see a Pandora’s box
Date 01/04/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Brian MacQuarrie
Travis Andersen
Article Summary

Article analyzes the killing of the Iranian Quds commander, but then badly misattributes a partisan quote to a former ambassador.

Share This Story

I read the Boston Globe analysis of the killing of Iranian Quds leader Soleimani and didn’t write about it as I found it fairly unobjectionable. But I did note the very strong quote at the end of the piece, attributed to former ambassador Nicholas Burns. The name rang a bell, but I figured he must be a former Obama official because the quote was very strong and offensive against President Trump. Calling the sitting president “a liar” is not something you see former ambassadors doing very often–at least not good ones.

So I looked up Burns and saw that he was originally appointed by one of the Bush presidents. That is a pretty good pedigree and if he also worked for Obama, I decided that his Bush connection would give him a pass on such an offensive attack on the president. These are strange times for political leaders and there are a number of “Never Trump” Republicans who seem to hate Trump so much that they would rather elect the next Democrat in 2020. Fine, it’s a free country.

Then yesterday’s paper ran a bit of a correction. The correction informed eagle-eyed readers that the final quote attributed to Burns was actually made by “former UN ambassador Samantha Power.” Wow, that is some retraction. Whoops!

That is a pretty big mistake, especially when putting such an offensive quote in the paper, but I totally believe someone like Power said it. She was an Obama loyalist, yet the correction doesn’t mention this affiliation.

I don’t know much about former Ambassador Burns. Maybe he likes Trump or maybe he doesn’t. But before you quote someone calling the President a liar, make sure you get that right, and make sure you identify any known qualifiers, like their political affiliation.


Allen Nitschelm is publisher of 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:

To reach our Facebook site in general:


Author Rating

Rating: 8.0/10.


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: Analysts see a Pandora’s box

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


Rating: 8.0/10.