After reviewing over 1,000 Boston Globe articles, it is clear that the paper and its media allies have created a trope about President Trump, that he lies all the time.
The media has created newspaper columns which “check facts” and report on President Trump’s “lies.” I have looked at dozens of these fact-checking columns and they are terribly biased and certainly don’t make the logical case that Trump lied.
Trump does speak imprecisely at times, off the cuff. He also makes lots of jokes which the media pretends not to get. But mostly, the fact-checkers are just so biased themselves that they can’t ever exonerate the guy.
I was doing research for another article on Coronavirus and came upon a fact-checking article which stated that President Trump lied when he claimed that Dr. Fauci was against the China travel ban and then changed his mind. This seems like a simple matter of fact, so I read the piece and it was truly amazing. The website was “snopes.com” (https://www.snopes.com/fact-check/fauci-china-restrictions/) and here is the fact they checked:
“NIAID Director Dr. Anthony Fauci criticized the Trump administration’s decision to impose travel restrictions on China to stem the spread of COVID-19.” They labeled this claim “false.”
Now, I have heard President Trump say repeatedly that Dr. Fauci was, at first, against the travel ban. But after it was implemented, he changed his mind and said it saved thousands of lives. And the fact-checking article admits this up-front!
It is true that after participating in a Jan. 24 briefing on Capitol Hill (when only a small handful of COVID-19 coronavirus disease cases had been reported in the U.S.), Fauci said both he and Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) director Robert Redfield told senators that imposing travel restrictions was “not a good idea at this time” and averred it “would create a lot of disruption economically and otherwise and it wouldn’t necessarily have a positive effect.” He also stated that a travel ban wasn’t something that was being considered at the time….(emphases mine)
After going on and on about this issue, the article makes its closing argument that Trump lied about Dr. Fauci this way:
In short, all the available public comments by Fauci about the imposition of China travel restrictions, as well as press reporting on that issue, indicate that the NIAID director was a consistent advocate and supporter of the travel ban from the beginning, not an opponent or critic of it.
Except they left out “except at the very beginning.” And that, of course, is what President Trump is referring to when he says Dr. Fauci changed his mind.
And this is how most of these fact-check articles go. But you have to read them carefully because they try every which way to make President Trump out to be a liar. Note the sly way they try to imply that Dr. Fauci’s “public comments” are what determines whether Trump is telling the truth, not the private comments Fauci and Trump discussed. But that of course is relevant to Trump’s understanding as well. In other words, even if Dr. Fauci made no public comments on this topic, that doesn’t mean he didn’t make them privately. But lucky for us, and incredibly, we were able to show how false many of these stories are just by reading them alone.
So the Boston Globe article we are discussing now was published the morning of the last presidential debate, and while the overall article was fairly routine for the Globe (moderately biased against Trump), it was not as overt as some articles that I have read. Still, the trope makes it onto the front page, claiming that his campaign is “falsehood-laden.” Of course, no examples are given, no Trump allies are allowed to dispute or challenge the examples…this is just stated as fact.
I have real news for the Globe: these are opinions, not facts.
There are legitimate ways for a reporter to get opinions into a news article. The way to do it professionally is to quote someone saying them. Of course, the professional reporter would then have to quote someone defending the president so readers get “both sides,” and balance. But the “lying trope” gets to skip this inconvenience.
The Left has accused President Trump of plenty of vile beliefs, and being a “liar” is not the worst. And, I guess the Globe and the journalist writing this story have a lot of experience dealing with lying politicians; after all, she was the Globe’s lead biographer for Sen. Elizabeth Warren, who had some trouble with the truth herself. But like Bill Clinton who perjured himself violating an employee in the Oval Office and Warren who advanced her career, taking a minority-hire position illegitimately, the only lies that matter to the Left are allegedly told by Republicans.
And now, we have Joe Biden claiming that he still had no idea what his son Hunter was doing with his foreign business dealings, as the son apparently sold influence to foreign governments to get access to his father. We still don’t have proof that Joe Biden was financially involved, but we do have an on-the-record allegation of his involvement by Hunter’s former business partner, who I guess was miffed that the millions their company was promised by agents of the Chinese Communist Party went to Hunter’s law firm instead of the shell corporation they had set up.
The former partner says he personally spoke with Joe Biden about the foreign businesses. So while we can’t conclude that Biden took cash, we can say he lied about his knowledge of his son’s activities. But the media doesn’t seem interested in this Biden lie, even though it may be just the tip of the iceberg.
In my biased view, selling access to foreign governments is a disqualifier to be President. And it is one of the reasons why businessman Donald Trump was an attractive candidate in 2016. His influence could not be bought, as he self-financed his campaign. Politicians who need to raise millions of dollars have a tendency to reward their financial supporters, and it is why we have such complicated campaign-finance laws. But hiring the relatives of politicians is quite the loophole.
Has Joe Biden shown favoritism to China or Ukraine, the two places where Hunter seemed to make his mark? The media will tell you no, absolutely not, no way, come on, man! What a bunch of malarkey.
So Boston Globe, we shall see in less than two weeks whether the media trope that President Trump always lies will end up swaying enough gullible voters to elect Joe Biden and usher in the Radical Left’s Socialist agenda on America.
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/962185004306643
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!