How to spot bias in one sentence

[CivilDiscourse]

Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo

Although Republicans went into the redistricting cycle with control over drawing more districts, it is actually Democrats who have gained ground from the process at this point. So far, redistricting has created 11 more Democratic-leaning seats nationally, three fewer Republican-leaning seats and eight fewer highly competitive seats. This is due to aggressive map-drawing by Democrats in states such as New York as well as court decisions overturning Republican gerrymanders in Ohio and North Carolina.

© Copyright Original Source

[rogue06]

My favorite examples are when the MSM describe conservatives as "attacking" or "pouncing" on the left whenever they inevitable screw up big time.

Then, back when Jimmy Carter was running for president, there was a local anti-Carter rally which the local paper (who was deeply in bed with Carter) provided the following description about an attendee that I still remember some 45 years later -- she was described as "her face screwed up in misdirected rage toward Carter." The very first thought that hit me was how can they have determined it was "misdirected rage?" In fact from what they reported she said, it was not misdirected at all. She was mad about something Carter had done.

[CivilDiscourse]

I just had to laugh at how, in one sentence, they euphemized one partys action, then used the "dirty" term in reference to the other.

[Ronson]

When I was taking Journalism (early 90s) it was called "loaded language" and was considered rare back then. I guess it was.

It's so common now that I trip over it every single day. The news media in the 21st century is a joke.

[Backup]

I just had to laugh at how, in one sentence, they euphemized one partys action, then used the "dirty" term in reference to the other.

Are you referring to the FiveThrityEight link in the OP?

It seems pretty objective and impartial.

[Mountain Man]

Are you referring to the FiveThrityEight link in the OP?

It seems pretty objective and impartial.

[CivilDiscourse]

Are you referring to the FiveThrityEight link in the OP?

It seems pretty objective and impartial.

I don't want this to be another thread where you hurl disingenuous innuendos, broad brush attacks, and insults while other posters aggressively discuss the topic with you.

[Stoic]

I just had to laugh at how, in one sentence, they euphemized one partys action, then used the "dirty" term in reference to the other.

And yet they had a link on the same page to an article where the "dirty" term is used in reference to the Democrats' redistricting in New York.

Go figure.

[CivilDiscourse]

And yet they had a link on the same page to an article where the "dirty" term is used in reference to the Democrats' redistricting in New York.

Go figure.

So, you counter an example of bias by claiming a different article used the word?

That refutes what argument?

[oxmixmudd]

My favorite examples are when the MSM describe conservatives as "attacking" or "pouncing" on the left whenever they inevitable screw up big time.

Then, back when Jimmy Carter was running for president, there was a local anti-Carter rally which the local paper (who was deeply in bed with Carter) provided the following description about an attendee that I still remember some 45 years later -- she was described as "her face screwed up in misdirected rage toward Carter." The very first thought that hit me was how can they have determined it was "misdirected rage?" In fact from what they reported she said, it was not misdirected at all. She was mad about something Carter had done.

Any and all fox stories about democrats.

[Gondwanaland]

Source: https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/redistricting-2022-maps/?cid=rrpromo

Although Republicans went into the redistricting cycle with control over drawing more districts, it is actually Democrats who have gained ground from the process at this point. So far, redistricting has created 11 more Democratic-leaning seats nationally, three fewer Republican-leaning seats and eight fewer highly competitive seats. This is due to aggressive map-drawing by Democrats in states such as New York as well as court decisions overturning Republican gerrymanders in Ohio and North Carolina.

© Copyright Original Source

Well of course gerrymandering is only gerrymandering when it's gerrymandering that benefits Republicans. Otherwise it's just good ole districting.

[Stoic]

So, you counter an example of bias by claiming a different article used the word?

That refutes what argument?

Sorry, I thought you were accusing fivethirtyeight.com of bias. Never mind.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sorry, I thought you were accusing fivethirtyeight.com of bias. Never mind.

There is bias on the website. But they are not full blown partisan. They have definitely started learning left in alot of their story framing and selection. They, have not, now ever become propaganda arms.

That write-up showed bias, but not every article is slanted.

[rogue06]

Are you referring to the FiveThrityEight link in the OP?

It seems pretty objective and impartial.

You are outing yourself as a troll a bit early.

[CivilDiscourse]

Sorry, I thought you were accusing fivethirtyeight.com of bias. Never mind.

It's not really a nevermind. It is pretty much typical of your posting style:

And yet they had a link on the same page to an article where the "dirty" term is used in reference to the Democrats' redistricting in New York.

Go figure.

You made an unspoken assumption about what I claimed. And decided mentioning a link on the page was enough to refute your imagined claim.

Lets forget for a second that you made up my claim, a link on the page doesn't disprove bias, even a link to another article on the webpage. A claim of bias doesn't mean every article is slanted, or every article will adhere to the entirety of the editorial direction of the website. That would be like disproving fox's conservative bias because one author criticized a republican.

Instead, it was a simple low-effort post, along with snark at the end. There was nothing constructive in your post (constructive to the conversation), and you couldn't even be bothered to quote the link in question.