The Globe persisted

The Globe persisted

PE Bias Grade : C+

By: Allen Nitschelm on February 11, 2020 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Warren, out of spotlight after Iowa, undeterred
Date 02/09/2020
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Jess Bidgood
Article Summary

Elizabeth Warren changes her messaging again before the NH primary, bring back “she persisted.”

Share This Story

[Warren Report #40-2020]

Is “undeterred” a synonym for “persisted”?

Undeterred is how the Boston Globe described Sen. Elizabeth Warren in this Warren Report in which she finished third in Iowa and appears to be fading fast.

This article is part of a cluster of four articles all focused on the NH primary. It makes the startling claim that Warren no longer needs to win in New Hampshire because she is campaigning everywhere. No matter what happens Tuesday, she is in it for the long haul. Last week, the Globe informed us that Warren even has staff in states after Super Tuesday. Is that chutzpah, hubris, or just poor management?

“Nevertheless, she persisted” is now this week’s catchphrase, replacing the “women win” line from last week. But based on the first voting state (IA) and the polls for the second (NH), women evidently don’t win.

Warren surrogate Maura Healey, the Attorney General of Massachusetts, tells us “frankly” that Iowa shows us nothing. What about New Hampshire, where Warren was once the favorite? Maybe New Hampshire will “show us something” about Warren’s chances in the Democrat primary.

The last two photos repeat very similar information but are in two different articles. Their similarity shows how the campaign and its surrogates in the media are staying on message. The story about her “persistence” is so good, the Boston Globe tells it twice on the same day. They, too, persisted.

——=——

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/779133459278466

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

 

Author Rating

Rating: 5.0/10.

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: Warren, out of spotlight after Iowa, undeterred

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: 5.0/10.

Description