Elliet Javier Conversation #3

Summary

The story follows the impeachment of homeland security secretary Alejandro Mayorkas, I chose to use allsides for this particular conversation. The GOP had been investigating Mayorkas for some time of not enforcing U.S immigration laws. As politics go, the only common ground there is in these three articles (Left, Middle and Right) is that the impeachment occurred. The Right sided article (wall street journal) provided by allsides included that Mayorkas created categorical parole programs contrary to the statute in question. The Left sided article (MSNBC) provided by all sides does not really seem to have a reliable fact or occurrence thats quotable, just a claim that the GOP had no evidence, in the article however they did not refer to what specific accusation evidence was being lacked for. The article in the middle by Reuters, stated that no Democrats backed the impeachment, and three house Republicans also had voted no to the impeachment (still was not enough). This was also a fact that the middle included that the other two articles did not include. The WSJ included that under oath Mayorkas claimed to have operational control of the border, then retracted the statement later. The middle article seems to want to remain separated from picking a side as much as possible, just stating things that occurred. The Right sided article wants to reinforce the impeachment as being a “victory” and showing some sort of exposure of something that was, to them, incorrect. The left sided article writes the impeachment out to be unjust. The language used in the MSNBC article is a lot more emotional, using words like “target” and “dramatic abuse of congressional power”. The right sided article has a more glorified tone to their vocabulary using terms like “the right thing to do”. The Reuters article is much more neutral with vocabulary. Being an act that the right side wanted, there is a confirmation bias with the impeachment going through, they can use is as justification (WSJ). With the left (MSNBC), there is a backfire effect, having something they believe in be challenged they took high defense in this article, veering away from using many citable sources. They both have an In-group and belief bias, both using anything they can to support their positions no matter what may arise in the debate. (These in no way reflect my views, just a simple bias analysis)