These were posted within minutes of each other.
These both seem to be pretty neutral titles?
One of them only introduces facts. The other adds flavor. Whether or not you consider the titles relatively neutral, one does introduce bias relative to the other one.
Introducing Walz as a VP hopeful sounds like they’re describing a Palin-level government official, not someone who has been active in politics for years.
Exactly! Additionally, the visual cues that are obviously being used paint a very different picture.
Propaganda isn’t really difficult. It just requires a predisposed audience.
If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying this is more favorable to Vance? However, if I read this and didn’t know anything about either of them I would tend to look more favorably towards Waltz more as his “Highschool Coach” experience makes him seem more relatable whereas Vance is just some politician. I guess I’m not so convinced this is an obvious example of propaganda.
When enough people think like that, the way of presenting would change. For now, seems you’re in the minority
they’re presenting the candidates differently, sure, but i honestly don’t know who you think this is favouring.
Introducing Walz as a VP hopeful sounds like they’re describing a Palin-level government official, not someone who has been active in politics for years.
They did the same to Vance though. Isn’t he a Senator? They didn’t mention that, just that he’s somebody hoping to be Trump’s VP. They also provided what I would see as a positive point for Walz: a football coach. That could be taken as he has an interest in teaching others, possibly children, but they don’t specify there.
I’d have to agree, however much I know media is biased, that this one is fairly neutral.
Idk, Vance looks like fuhrer wannabe here but Harris and Walz are cheery and normal. Also footbal coach sounds much better than “second-in-command” (though i might be mistaken on both, i have a lingering suspicion Americans like fuhrer figures and lofty militarised title for civilian politicians).
I get the point this post is trying to make and I do agree with it, but this seems to be a pretty bad example. The headline for Walz seems to be a display of how far he’s gotten in life. A classic “American Dream, from humble beginnings” story that seems to be more and more distant these days.
Everyone is saying neutral while the Vance headline uses powerful titles like Second-in-Command, while calling Waltz an ex football coach lmao. But sure neutral it is.
The Harris-Walz campaign is specifically amplifying his hometown roots in their own messaging… It’s how they want us to view him. I’d say it’d be more biased if the article painted him as nothing but a seasoned politician.
I could see that approach. I guess what I’m most upset about is the attempt at shoeing strengths of current Republican leaders. Maybe the real issue I take is I see not one positive quality of the opposition and dont understand how any reputable source could attempt.to find one.
I think what you really mean is that you have acknowledged your bias. You take in information based on your own cognitive biases, including your appraisal of these two messages.
To me they both seem neutral in language. Neither states anything directly about the candidate, other than having information about them. This is an example of my bias. I’m not American so I don’t have the same emotional reactions that lead me to believing one or the other is more biased. To me the only thing I can say is that the Republican one is a stylized photo whereas the bottom one looks to be a photograph.
Not necessarily. One snip gives an example of a positive quality of the person in question paired with a positive leaning photo. The other gives no such example of quality (and in fact uses authoritarian language as a way of swaying opinion) paired with a photo doctored to (at least in my mind) resemble historically negative figureheads.
This is a form of bias and propaganda.
Again, this just points to how you interpreted this image based off your cognitive bias. To you, one photo is positive, another is negative. That’s interesting. I don’t denote their differences as being positive or negative. They just are to me. There is no objective view of these things.
Both Trump and JD Vance has used straight up Hitlarian Rhetoric such as ‘Immigrants are poisoning the blood of our country.’ If anything, the media is downplaying the differences and Fascism of the Republican party.
The bias and propaganda of Western Media to manufacture consent for our Foreign policy actions would be a much better example
Of all the examples of media bias you could have chosen, this is the most tepid.
I find it important to call out any media bias no matter how “tepid” you may find it.
It’s the deluge of “tepid” examples of bias that makes us complacent when what you might consider “real bias” comes up and goes unnoticed and/or unquestioned.
Then why not start with those ones?
Likely because they aren’t as in your face or recent, and this just happened to be the first thing they saw in their feed?
This post is like saying water is wet then showing a picture of ice
Look at this water is wet propagandist!
To all of the “neutral” folks:
Wouldn’t “neutral” mean you could swap headlines and photos and still have the same emotional response (because that is the aim of propaganda, to illicit an emotional response)?
I don’t think this would garner the same response if it was switched.
It is subtle propaganda (apparently), but biased propaganda none the less.
“Who is JD Vance? The couch fucker who is now a VP hopeful”
To be fair, they do have to come up with a relatively unique title for each article and neither of these titles are particularly extreme. It could be argued that these are unbiased and they just need to market it to a world with no attention span.
What would be more telling is the content of the articles themselves. Which, if human nature is anything to go by, are almost certainly quite biased.
Even after reading comments I still have no clue who this is supposed to be biased towards.
Some people have pointed out how some of the words would be perceived, but not how that makes it biased.
E.g. ‘football coach’ is a weaker term, but portrays an approachable person. Do you think being strong or being approachable is more important?
You could pick any two examples, and this is what you came up with.
Eh…you can pick any two examples and show anything really.
