Here is a link to a recent opinion piece in the New York Times which charges Donald Trump with being an authoritarian leader. This means he is, or is trying to become, or wants to be, a dictator. This means he doesn’t follow the rule of law and would prefer to just make his own rules. Here is the link: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/06/10/opinion/resistance-democrats-pelosi-schumer.html
Here’s a link from January which claims Trump’s “agenda” is authoritarian: https://www.forbes.com/sites/stevedenning/2019/01/13/how-the-shutdown-is-a-win-for-trumps-authoritarian-agenda/#4326a89e250f
And here’s another example from The Hill: https://thehill.com/opinion/white-house/447970-trump-doesnt-fit-stereotype-of-dictators-because-hes-an-american-authoritarian
So the media likes to portray Trump as a lawless would-be dictator. Then how does it explain his decision to back down after the Supreme Court declined to allow the Trump administration to ask an obvious question on the census, which is, are you a citizen?
So this is an example of how the media ignores evidence that contradicts its premise. Otherwise, we would see a bunch of mea culpas in the coming weeks from reporters who have made this charge but are now retracting it based on new evidence.
We should see similar retractions from all the reporters who claimed or speculated that Donald Trump would seize power illegally to extend his term (whether that is after next November or four years later.)
So how does the media cover this story? First, it ignores that it contradicts another common narrative, and then it portrays Trump in a bad light. You see, he is a loser. He tried to add the citizenship question to the census and he simply couldn’t get it done.
He backed down. He waved the white flag. This was an anti-climactic end to a showdown Trump escalated. He ended his quest not with a bang but with a whimper. Etc. No mention of the rule of law, or the fact that Trump could have tried to sign an executive order and did not.
So you see, it makes no difference what Trump does. He will be covered negatively no matter what.
*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!