In the third New York Times article, “An Assault on the Voting Rights Act,” the word choice of “assault” demonstrates a noticeable bias towards the disapproval of the ruling. It emits a vibe of attack towards the nation. The first sentence, “the conservative majority on the Roberts Court issued another damaging and intellectually dishonest ruling.” goes for a specific stance that accuses the conservative of having class bias against the minority, Entman and Rojecki’s work The Black Image in the White Mind: Media and Race in America describes class bias as a journalistic norm when it portrays violent crimes and who has committed them. For example, in the reading, they state that “another part of the explanation is elite activity. With persistent
…show more content…
This article is however, subtly against the ruling. They state that “it’s a cynical ruling” and how “the Voting Rights Act was renewed overwhelmingly in 2006 by a Republican led Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush.” These two sentences are the center of the framing in this article. By stating that a Republican Congress and president acknowledged the importance of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, this article presents a subtle bias against the ruling. The writers also bring in statistical evidence of the growth and progress against discrimination. The journalists introduce to the readers the past rulings of congressional maps in 2011 by a Republican-led legislature. They specifically establish that there were two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee in the court. The final ruling was that the maps were tossed out and stated that the map proved to be of “more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address in their ruling.” This distinguishes the difference between the actual facts and the desires of the Texas officials after the ruling. This is substantive objectivity at its finest because the writers specifically sought out more information to write about this ruling to evaluate the accuracy and factual claims of the consequences of the Supreme Court decision. However, this article is extremely biased towards the white officials supporting the Supreme Court’s
This article is however, subtly against the ruling. They state that “it’s a cynical ruling” and how “the Voting Rights Act was renewed overwhelmingly in 2006 by a Republican led Congress and signed into law by a Republican president, George W. Bush.” These two sentences are the center of the framing in this article. By stating that a Republican Congress and president acknowledged the importance of Sections 4 and 5 of the Voting Rights Act, this article presents a subtle bias against the ruling. The writers also bring in statistical evidence of the growth and progress against discrimination. The journalists introduce to the readers the past rulings of congressional maps in 2011 by a Republican-led legislature. They specifically establish that there were two Republican appointees and one Democratic appointee in the court. The final ruling was that the maps were tossed out and stated that the map proved to be of “more evidence of discriminatory intent than we have space or need to address in their ruling.” This distinguishes the difference between the actual facts and the desires of the Texas officials after the ruling. This is substantive objectivity at its finest because the writers specifically sought out more information to write about this ruling to evaluate the accuracy and factual claims of the consequences of the Supreme Court decision. However, this article is extremely biased towards the white officials supporting the Supreme Court’s