How to spot bias in one sentence

[Bill the Cat]

You are outing yourself as a troll a bit early.

Was probably just a typo...

[rogue06]

Here is an example from a few years back written by the same person a little over a week apart

main-qimg-0b86ad6b0be1b480ef9bda4979a5bb3c.jpg

The writer told us that the white designer dress was a "scary statement," and gave off a reminder that "in the G.O.P. white is always right" when Melania wore it but that immediately changed when Hillary appeared in all white. Then wearing all white magically transformed into something that represents all that is good and noble. She declared it to be "a hue that’s both soft and strong," and that it "told America loud and clear that she joyfully accepted the opportunity to run for president of the United States of America…she has arrived. This is surreal. A dream come true."

[Backup]

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.

I copied and pasted the link in the OP and read it.

I asked if I was missing something. I guess there were a lot of links in there I could have followed, but that wasn't what was pointed out in the OP.

Thanks again for the condescension. You don't even seem to be entertaining the idea you did a poor job of expressing your "point." I'm still not seeing it.

[CivilDiscourse]

I copied and pasted the link in the OP and read it.

I asked if I was missing something. I guess there were a lot of links in there I could have followed, but that wasn't what was pointed out in the OP.

Thanks again for the condescension. You don't even seem to be entertaining the idea you did a poor job of expressing your "point." I'm still not seeing it.

Like I said. 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.

[Backup]

Like I said. 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.

where, exactly is the bias in this quote?

"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."

Are you saying that the words "aggressive" and "gerrymander" are bias?

I mean the Republicans are also aggressive and the Democrats are gerrymandering.

[Backup]

Here is an example from a few years back written by the same person a little over a week apart

main-qimg-0b86ad6b0be1b480ef9bda4979a5bb3c.jpg

The writer told us that the white designer dress was a "scary statement," and gave off a reminder that "in the G.O.P. white is always right" when Melania wore it but that immediately changed when Hillary appeared in all white. Then wearing all white magically transformed into something that represents all that is good and noble. She declared it to be "a hue that’s both soft and strong," and that it "told America loud and clear that she joyfully accepted the opportunity to run for president of the United States of America…she has arrived. This is surreal. A dream come true."

yeah, that is certainly biased.

Doesn't seem like she is trying to be impartial.

"ELIZABETH WELLINGTON
As a columnist, I write about gender, race, fashion, culture and wellness. I share my personal take on the way we live and how we style our lives."

[Backup]

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

It's almost like the OP is unclear. Go figure.

[CivilDiscourse]

yeah, that is certainly biased.

Doesn't seem like she is trying to be impartial.

"ELIZABETH WELLINGTON
As a columnist, I write about gender, race, fashion, culture and wellness. I share my personal take on the way we live and how we style our lives."

Now go back to the original quote. It's subtle spin on the same action by two different parties.

For republicans it uses the accepted negative term. "Gerrymandering". For Democrats, it uses the more passive euphamism "Aggressive Map Drawing". Similar to how a defense attorney might refer to sexual harassment as "Aggressive flirtation."

[rogue06]

Now go back to the original quote. It's subtle spin on the same action by two different parties.

For republicans it uses the accepted negative term. "Gerrymandering". For Democrats, it uses the more passive euphamism "Aggressive Map Drawing". Similar to how a defense attorney might refer to sexual harassment as "Aggressive flirtation."

Or how someone you approve of is intelligent, wise and clever, whereas those who you disapprove of are crafty, sly and slick.

[rogue06]

yeah, that is certainly biased.

Doesn't seem like she is trying to be impartial.

"ELIZABETH WELLINGTON
As a columnist, I write about gender, race, fashion, culture and wellness. I share my personal take on the way we live and how we style our lives."

From a fashion writer what else could you expect but opinion? Fashion IS opinion. But while a designer may choose to make a statement with their clothing, typically you don't find the critics interpreting everything from such an angry and narrow perspective.

[Backup]

Now go back to the original quote. It's subtle spin on the same action by two different parties.

For republicans it uses the accepted negative term. "Gerrymandering". For Democrats, it uses the more passive euphamism "Aggressive Map Drawing". Similar to how a defense attorney might refer to sexual harassment as "Aggressive flirtation."

man

that’s a stretch

[Stoic]

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

Posting style seems a little bit off topic. But, whatever. It’s your thread.

You made an unspoken assumption about what I claimed.

True. Sorry about that.

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.

If one example of not using the word gerrymandering with regard to Democrats was evidence of bias on the part of fivethirtyeight.com (as I wrongly assumed you to be claiming), then an article that repeatedly uses the word gerrymandering with regard to Democrats should be enough to refute it.

Instead, it was a simple low-effort post,

I’ll grant that I didn’t put much effort into it. If I had, I probably would have pointed out that the author in question might be drawing a distinction between "gerrymanders" as redistricting that was ruled to be partisan gerrymandering by the state supreme courts of Ohio and North Carolina, and "aggressive redistricting" which might or might not be ruled partisan gerrymandering when the courts have made a decision. I don’t really know, since I can’t read his mind. But I doubt that you can, either.

along with snark at the end.

I plead guilty to snark. There is a lot of snark on these boards, and I figure I deal out my fair share. But if snark bothers you so much, I have to wonder why you’re here. It’s kind of like someone moving to Seattle and then complaining about the rain.

There was nothing constructive in your post (constructive to the conversation), and you couldn't even be bothered to quote the link in question.

Now who’s putting in low effort? If you had bothered to click on the link, you would have seen the title “New York’s Gerrymander Might Change Which Party Picks Up Seats In The Midterms”

And right below that, you would have seen, “Senior elections analyst Nathaniel Rakich breaks down how New York state was able to pass its Democratically gerrymandered congressional map and what it could mean for the 2022 midterm race.”