Where’s my Warren Report?

Where’s my Warren Report?

PE Bias Grade : N/A

By: Allen Nitschelm on April 2, 2019 | Media Criticism

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title N/A
Date 04/01/2019
Article Link N/A
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist N/A
Article Summary N/A
Share This Story

It’s Monday, and no Warren Report in the Boston Globe. What gives?

The Globe was running an almost daily Warren Report for months and months. If it wasn’t Warren, it was someone she mentored, it was a college giving her a degree, it was her dog, it was her campaign manager, it was something.

Interspersed were several big reveals, the first being the Boston Globe’s attempt at total exoneration for having falsely claimed Native American heritage. The Globe did an exhaustive report and investigation to prove there was no collusion…whoops, wrong report. They proved that professors hiring Warren did not do so based on any Native American claims. I thought their research information was good, even as they admitted that gender did play a helping hand in her hirings as a law professor over the years. But “hiring” is not the same thing as “employment.” Did Elizabeth Warren receive any preferential treatment or did the colleges get any benefit from her being a listed minority member? That is a much harder thing to disprove and the Globe didn’t even try, even as they have since concluded she received “no benefit.” This is very likely a false conclusion.

The second big reveal was her DNA test, which showed a very small percentage of what may be American Indian blood, going back several generations, up to ten. This didn’t confirm her story, it overturned it. She has less Indian blood than the average American and the stories about her parents having to elope because of prejudice against Indians are absurd.

In these two reveals, the Globe didn’t act like a group of journalists, it acted like a PR agency. Obvious questions weren’t asked or if asked, weren’t investigated when the answers were avoided.

Since then, we had a new mini-reveal with a similar lack of journalistic vigor. Warren claimed that she was no longer going to seek campaign donations at parties of wealthy donors because she wanted a grass-roots fundraising operation. This is a pretty transparent strategy to avoid fundraising comparisons with her primary opponents, but the Globe carried the Senator’s water on this claim too, so it wouldn’t be readily apparent to everyone that Warren’s campaign was in trouble and her support was dying on the vine.

Over the weekend, one of the Warren campaign’s official biographers, who ostensibly works for the Globe as a reporter, wrote an article on President Trump. Have the two reporters attached to the Warren campaign been pulled from their beat?

It would seem so. Which means the Globe has abandoned Warren already. Hmm…how come there is no editorial urging Warren to drop out because she has been mortally wounded? How come no soul-searching article about voters who reluctantly can’t support Warren any longer? How is Bailey, Warren’s dog, reacting to this change of fortune?

The Globe needs to turn its Spotlight team onto what happened to the Warren Report.


There are no user ratings at the moment.

Subscriber Ratings & Comments

Please be sure you are logged in to Rate Boston Globe Articles or Post Comments.

Here is the article you are rating for journalistic bias: N/A

Rating scale in brief: 10 = A (No Bias) | 1 = F (Extreme Bias). For more details, please read Tips & Instructions below.

Please wait...

*Requires minimim of 5 Ratings to be displayed

Leave A Comment

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!

Leave A Comment