A president who can appoint a few people to a Board in which there are many members gets to influence the makeup of the board. Such an organization is insulated from day-to-day politics because the president’s influence is limited by his appointments and the staggered terms of the members.
There is nothing wrong with President Trump picking loyalists and those who share his philosophy to serve on the Federal Reserve. There are something like 12 members and the Trump loyalists will still have to convince a majority of the others to win the argument.
Today’s piece is interesting because it is obviously an “anti-Trump” article (see the subhead, and the way that the “partisan” label is applied to President Trump in the headline), but when you read through it, you find out that previous presidents have picked their allies when they had their turn. So this is just partisan politics as practiced by the Boston Globe.
“No one would argue that the Fed is divorced from politics,” is the start of this article’s concluding paragraph. Except, of course, the author and the media, when Donald Trump is making the nominations. Then his nominations should be apolitical, of course.
*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!