When Toto rips the curtain to the side, the Wizard of Oz realizes he’s been found out, and tries to cover it up by shouting over his loudspeaker, “Pay no attention to that man behind the curtain!”
I flagged today’s Boston Globe editorial by the Editorial Board because it did show “the man behind the curtain” in a sense. It showed what the Globe’s agenda really is with all of its climate-change coverage. It is trying to convince readers to support Democratic candidates because of this phony alarm that various interest groups are blaring. It is all about politics, not the future survival of humanity, although Democrats probably believe that only they can ensure our species’ survival for whatever reason. Well, that is the hubris of the Left. They know better than you what you should eat, where you should live, what shows you should watch, what lessons your kids should learn, etc.
But imagine my surprise to download the editorial and find that the real author, apparently, is Globe columnist Scot Lehigh. See photo two (the Globe editorial) and photo three (the same column with a Lehigh byline.)
Is it possible for the Globe editorial to plagiarize one of its own op-ed columnists?
Back to the point of the piece, regardless of who the author is. The last two paragraphs neatly sum up why climate-change is about convincing people to vote for Democrats, even though there are a good 10 reasons why this is a phony hoax, some of which are actually discussed in the article itself, like how the EU is missing the climate goals it set, but hopes to “redouble” their efforts in the future; or how we need to increase “the world’s” promised carbon emission reductions by three- to five-fold, or dire consequences will ensue. Yet “the world’s” use of carbon is going UP, not down. (“Meanwhile, global greenhouse gas emissions are on course to reach a record high in 2019, mostly due to increased emissions in China and India,”…)
It will be hard for Europe to change that. But American citizens can. How? By making climate change a voting priority in 2020. We should favor presidential candidates with ambitious climate goals and solid plans to achieve them.
It’s time for the American electorate to make climate change a political do-or-die, up and down the ticket. The coming election is pivotal if we hope to avoid the worst warming, but it will also be good practice: For the foreseeable future, we will need leaders who boldly steer us out of the climate crisis instead of off the cliff. (emphases mine).
Well, Scott/Globe is right about one thing. We are steering towards a crisis or a dive off a cliff, but the issue isn’t climate-change, it is taxation and economics, which is socialism versus capitalism.
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 published.
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/735311683660644
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!