The Boston Globe now reports that Donald Trump supporters who wear the red “MAGA” hats are simply advertising their racism. If you support Trump, you are “xenophobic” and promote “hate.”
This type of reporting is obviously wrong and completely biased. The media has created this narrative about Donald Trump allegedly being a racist and then promotes their self-creation as fact, in an attempt to shift the popular thinking about Trump and elect his opponent in November, who will be an avowed socialist, a closet socialist, or an enabler of socialism.
The Democrats have long characterized the Republicans as the party of the “rich.” Republicans were all “greedy.” Those labels no longer work with so many tech billionaires preferring socialism. You’d think that would be a contradiction, but perhaps it is because once someone has made it big, making more money is no longer a concern. They want capitalism as they amass their fortunes, and use capitalism to do so, but then want to stop others from reaping capitalism’s benefits like they have. Once they have made it, we can turn the spigot off for others. Seems to defy logic, but so be it.
The thing is, if these billionaires want higher taxes for the wealthy, just pay higher taxes. Nothing prevents them from voluntarily increasing their taxes (or doing philanthropy, which many of them do). But how many “billionaires” don’t deduct their charitable giving? Probably few if any. So long as the government is helping to subsidize their philanthropy, they shouldn’t be advocating that others pay more in taxes when they are taking advantage of the very loopholes that they advocate should be closed or restricted.
Also, claiming that supporting President Trump is evidence of a supporter’s racism is itself just like racism. Isn’t the problem with racism drawing conclusions about large groups of people based on the actions (or traits) of a few? If we generalize about a group, that is unfair because it judges people based on superficial characteristics which certainly don’t apply to every single individual. So if we said that African-Americans had dark skin, that would not be racist, that would be true. But if we said that African-Americans were good at, say, singing, that would be racist because it is a generalization.
I don’t know if in the politically correct world we live in today if ascribing positive generalizations (like being good singers) is considered racist. Does racism include positive characteristics of groups or just negative ones? I would think both. Any generalization, whether positive or negative, would seem to be unfair.
Characterizing Trump supporters in this way is exactly the same thing. Voters could support Trump for any reason, and there are hundreds to choose from. Assuming that his supporters are racist, even if he himself was, is an unfair generalization.
Trump being a racist appears to come directly from his comments about the Charlottesville protest in 2017 in which a woman died by being hit by a car driven by a white supremacist. President Trump commented that the two sides of the protest–for and against a civil war statue and renaming a City park–had good people “on both sides” who disagreed, and then the crazy people got involved and it turned into a violent event. The media purposely mischaracterized Trump’s words as praising “white supremacists” and not the people who didn’t want civil war statues taken down for historical accuracy reasons. And this mischaracterization has continued (as I have documented) in the media to this day. It is unbelievable but it goes to show how strongly motivated the media is to smear President Trump.
So Trump supporters are not “racists.” Likewise, we shouldn’t call Democrat voters “socialists.” People could have hundreds of different reasons for voting for a Democratic Socialist and it doesn’t necessarily mean that Sanders and Warren voters are themselves socialists.
What the media is doing with a story like this is “normalizing” the view that anyone who supports Donald Trump is a racist, because (they claim) Donald Trump is himself a racist. If you want to vote for a racist, you must be a racist.
What would an article demonizing Sanders supporters sound like? If we said that people who displayed a “Bernie” sign on their lawn or their car were actually socialists themselves, and they wanted to take away your money and give it to themselves and their friends, should we react strongly to that suggestion? If “racism” is hate speech and that is evil, isn’t what socialists also want to do, fundamentally, evil? They want the government to take the power to redistribute money from the rich to the poor (at least in theory). We might call this the potential tyranny of the majority. Can the majority empower our political leaders to confiscate the wealth of the rich? I hope it never happens, but that is essentially what Bernie and his supporters seem to want. But I hope that most of his voters just don’t realize the mistake they are making and when Donald Trump explains it, Bernie’s support will crumble.
If the media were being honest, it would not create and publish stories like this. If some journalist thought “hey, wouldn’t it be great to run a story about how wearing Trump hats indicates that the wearer is also racist,” their editor should squash it immediately. It just isn’t appropriate. It is also extremely divisive to our democracy.
Unfortunately, the decision to run stories like this isn’t coming from the journalists, it is coming from the editors, or the publishers. And we know that is true because the article in question is syndicated from the Washington Post and the Boston Globe is choosing to run it. At the Globe, at least, this is an editorial decision, and it is a very poor one.
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/792867967905015
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!