The Boston Globe is a shill for the Warren campaign. I don’t think anyone could dispute this fact, backed up by our Warren Report series. The Globe has run probably 100 positive Warren stories over the past couple of years, far more than other candidates (not counting the negative Trump articles, of course.)
This coverage was highlighted by the attempt to exonerate the Senator for her false claims to Native American ancestry. The Globe showed (through good reporting) that she had not been hired based on her Indian claims. But they took that conclusion and changed it in later reporting to read that Warren had received no benefit. That is false, and the Globe knew it.
The Globe also worked with Warren to release the results of her DNA test. The announcement tried to make the case that Warren had been telling the truth all along, because, perhaps, she had as little as 1/10 of 1% of possible Native American blood. That was a fail and it confirmed to the public that her claims were false.
Now, there is a journalistic reason for the Globe to cover Warren extensively (although this reason does not give them the right to promote her candidacy, which the Globe clearly does.) And that is because she is a “Native Daughter.” She is the Massachusetts Senator and the reporters at the Globe should have more information and contacts about Warren than a paper from elsewhere. The Warren campaign obviously gives the Boston Globe a lot of access, and the Globe gives her a lot of ink.
But the Boston Globe can’t have it both ways. They can’t be promoting Warren in several positive articles per week, while not using their access to the Warren campaign to report on what is really happening. A “no comment” from Warren cannot end their investigation. They need to use their contacts to be real reporters, and not just cheerleaders, when there is real campaign news. And if Warren “resists,” then the Globe cannot ethically continue their close and favorable reporting. Warren shouldn’t get to choose which negative stories get fully covered and which get sidelined.
Today’s article is about a top staffer in the Warren campaign, one who has worked on numerous other campaigns including those for local politicians, who has mysteriously left his post. Why? The Globe doesn’t say.
The odds of the Globe not knowing the reason is slim to none. So the failure to report it is a decision the Globe is making intentionally. Is it because it is a personnel matter that doesn’t rise to a level that needs to be reported? Is it like not naming a minor being accused of a crime, or not naming the victim of a sexual assault? Then say so. If the Globe knows the reason but feels it isn’t in the public’s interest to disclose it, that should be stated.
But the person leaving sounds like he wasn’t a victim and his name is being used. So why is he going? What happened?
Let me also object to the headline in this piece. The Globe never fails to mention “Trump” in the headline of a negative article. That is one of the goals, obviously. Yet in this story, the word “Warren” didn’t make it to the headline. Nor did it make it to the subhead. How convenient.
Let’s contrast this to how Boston.com published a story on this topic: “Elizabeth Warren campaign fires senior staffer after reports of ‘inappropriate behavior’” (emphasis mine).
*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!