Today’s article details several of the military spending projects that are being deferred or cancelled in favor of building the Wall on the U.S. southern border. A total of $3.6 billion is being diverted to build 175 miles of fencing along the border, helping to fulfill a campaign promise. President Trump said that Mexico would pay for the Wall, and when the USMCA agreement is finalized, they actually might.
In the meantime, Mexico is helping by putting their soldiers on their southern and northern borders to help stem the migrant flow. As of Sept. 9, the number of arrests at the border have fallen about 60% from May’s high, which is an amazing turnaround. The problem is not yet solved, but we are making real progress.
Today’s article is pretty clear that $3.6 billion is not a lot of money from the military’s budget. Only about $1 billion is coming from domestic military spending, and one example is a new parking lot at West Point that will have to be delayed. If that is an example of the types of projects that are being affected, then Trump should have gotten twice the funding to build 300 miles of additional Wall. I’m not saying that a parking lot is unnecessary, but compared to securing our border from millions of illegal immigrants, the priorities of our country cannot be clearer.
I get the feeling that the article’s writers were hoping that their list and headline would somehow sway people that Trump shouldn’t be diverting money. After all, the first thing they mention that will be affected is “schools.” Don’t worry, I’m sure we won’t be not educating our children because of the immigration crisis. The rest of the article makes it pretty clear that this is a significant win for President Trump, the Wall is being replaced where needed and new sections are being added, and the Democrats are vowing not to backfill any cancelled military spending. If the Pentagon and the President thinks that the border Wall is more important than a West Point parking lot, and the Democrats refuse to backfill anything, then I guess the cadets and visitors will have to walk a little further to campus.
*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!