• criitz@reddthat.com
    link
    fedilink
    arrow-up
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    8 months ago

    What part of this article has a bias? Just browsing but I don’t immediately get it

    • Exocrinous@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      The article speaks as though DeSantis is a person, which obviously implicitly platforms the idea that the self exists as a distinct entity. This is not a universally recognised truth; Buddhism and some other Asian religions do not recognise it. The article is biased and refuses to address the cultural assumptions put into its writing.

      Yes, this fact means that everything you’ve ever read is biased. This is because it’s true, everything is biased. Everything is culturally relative. Reality is a social construct and every piece of journalism which claims the existence of reality is biased.

    • m0darn@lemmy.ca
      link
      fedilink
      arrow-up
      0
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      edit-2
      8 months ago

      In a Thursday morning press conference in Florida, Republican Gov. Ron DeSantis, a failed 2024 presidential candidate, flanked by representatives from the Southern Poverty Law Center-designated anti-government extremist group Moms for Liberty, including co-founder Tina Descovich, attempted to defend the state’s restrictive educational policies.

      In a Thursday morning press conference in Florida, the state’s Governor Ron DeSantis spoke in favor of the state’s educational policies which some groups call “over restrictive”.

      Which is more biased? The first paragraph is true, but is obviously trying to paint DeSantis more negatively.

      • Senal@programming.dev
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        8 months ago

        Leaving out details is also bias. Especially when those details are pertinent to the subject being reported on.

        That he was talking about state policies could arguably be said to warrant including politics based details of the situation. Him being a failed presidential candidate and attending said event with a representatives of an anti-government extremist group would probably qualify for that.

        The difference between:

        Man speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s

        vs

        Man known for previously running on a platform of meat-quota deregulation. speaks at length against restrictions to future meat-production quota’s, surrounded by meat industry lobbyists.

        Yes, the second one sounds more negative, but that’s not necessarily bias.