Each article shows bias in different ways such as pushing an agenda using words to frame the agenda being pushed depending on the topic. I chose the article called “Attorney General Merrick Garland Defends DOJ During House Testimony”
The article spoke about attorney “General Merrick” and about a 6 hour hearing regarding how his department he represented treated and handled the investigations of ex-president Trump and his son. Overall during the hearing it was obvious Merrick was avoiding answering questions asked by the committee. The Left bias paints a picture that General Merrick is a “soft-spoken” character and the committee who asked the questions were “far-right Trump stalwarts” supporting the fact that the left side painted the committee as being more aggressive to General Merrick and him being more of a victim throughout the hearing. The central side tried to be as neutral as possible pointing flaws in both Merrick’s response to each question or lack of each response to the questions asked but central also wasn’t safe to being pointed out such as when the article from the committee side saying “Republicans pelted him with rapid-fire questions” suggesting they gave Marrick no time to breath in-between questions. The right side showed Marrick as a figure who was unsure what to say during the hearing saying he “stumbled over questions” or he “dodged questions” during the hearing. Overall I noticed each article was very different when It came to their wording on the situation. They would phrase Curtin things to show bias on the side in-which they supported.
One thought on “Week 3 Conversation: Bias”
I completely agree with the ways you identified bias in your articles, especially the specific word choice in each article. When analyzing this event through these 3 articles it became quite clear as to the opinions of each. All in all I agree with your analysis heavily