Yay! A new Warren Report (#101-2019)

Yay! A new Warren Report (#101-2019)

PE Bias Grade : C-

By: Allen Nitschelm on April 11, 2019 | Article Review

This is a review of the following Boston Globe Article:
Article Title Warren raises $6m in quarter
Date 04/11/2019
Article Link Boston Globe ( Page A1 )
Syndicated From N/A
Journalist Liz Goodwin
Article Summary

Update on Democrat fundraising with Warren’s quarterly total in the middle of the pack.

Share This Story

Innuendo passes as journalism these days, as reporters smear President Trump with anonymous sources. Since the media is now partisan, using anonymous sources is a real problem. How can readers trust such reporting when the writers and publishers are conflicted?

The other side of this coin is the positive reporting when the media supports a candidate. Today, the Globe asserts in the subhead that despite Warren’s very middling fundraising quarter, concerns have now been “eased” that Warren would not raise enough money. Here is the exact quote: “Middle of the pack total eases concerns about forgoing big donors.” Globe readers can now breath a sigh of relief as the Globe has confirmed that the Warren campaign is still alive. The Native Daughter is on the warpath!

But whose concerns have been eased (besides the Globe writers and editors)? Who believes that Warren now has a clear path to the Democrat nomination, other than her handlers and sycophants at the Boston Globe?

Read into the story and this claim of “eased concerns” is a mirage. “The senator’s $6 million haul from 135,000 donors puts her near the back of the pack of top-tier Democratic candidates but is enough to keep her extensive operation afloat — a development that probably will ease the concerns of some allies who worried her first-quarter totals would be dismal after she decided to forgo courting wealthy donors.” (emphases mine).

So don’t be concerned, Cherokee Warriors for Warren, that your Chief is “near” the back of the pack.

Instead, her huge cash haul will “probably” ease your concerns. Do you feel better yet?

You see, the article actually quotes nobody whose concerns have been eased, yet the headline said that they were eased. And the article says that they “probably” will be eased.

Talk about spinning bad news. Well, that’s why campaign handlers like Boston Globe Reporter Liz Goodwin gets the big bucks.

The article then quotes a few Warren current and former campaign staffers. And then the final quote is from a former Obama campaign manager who says that forgoing big donors is going to be very challenging this election season because large states have become battleground states early on. That doesn’t sound too good for Warren’s fundraising strategy, does it? Maybe Warren supporters should be concerned.

On a side note, the Globe finally reports that Warren’s Finance Director resigned. It doesn’t say when this happened, which was about 10 days ago. Here is our article about the Globe’s lack of coverage: https://ma.publiceditorpress.com/boston-globe-hides-breaking-warren-news/

Because they did finally report this news, I’ll upgrade this Warren Report’s rating slightly.


Author Rating

Rating: 3.0/10.


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: Warren raises $6m in quarter

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


Rating: 3.0/10.


Social Media Auto Publish Powered By : XYZScripts.com