Every few weeks, no matter what is happening around the world— say a deadly flu pandemic—it is time to roll out another “Trump is a sexist” column.
The evidence is that he criticized women. How outrageous! Women are above all criticism for any reason whatsoever, and if a woman is criticized, we must condemn it. We must call out and shame the accuser. Women are to be believed, no matter how outrageous or unsupported their accusations, as we learned from the Left in the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation.
So we want more women in politics and business because they have been historically under-represented, but they can’t be criticized because that is sexist. Makes a lot of sense. So companies that hire and promote women won’t be able to fire them because of the negative publicity and public shaming. Maybe companies will be less likely to promote women in the first place given this new standard.
The Left wants to have it both ways. They want everyone to be equal (judge people on the content of their character, not the color of their skin), but then they want different rules depending on irrelevant factors, and we all are quite familiar with the list. They want “under-represented” groups to be given preference, but then talking about these groups in any other context other than giving them preferences is racist, sexist, homophobic, xenophobic, or triskaidekaphobic (fear of the number 13, the word of the day.)
Woe to President Trump if he criticizes Mayor Pete, Speaker Pelosi, Julio Castro, or Joe Biden, as representatives of gay, female, Hispanic, and dementia sufferers.
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/813929975798814
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!