Trump era meets bias era

Washington Times and The Hill ran two articles that included the words “Planned Parenthood” and “Trump”. Oh boy! Anyway the two articles talk about how Trump is handling the issues with Planned Parenthood. The Washington Post ( in this article tends to sway more towards the neutral while The Hill ( sways to the right side more. I believe if the reader only reads The Hill then they will only understand the negatives to Trump and his ideas for Planned Parenthood.

Let’s focus on The Hill first since it’s the most blunt with what side they sway towards. Let’s first focus on the diction of the headline, “Planned Parenthood seeks survival in Trump era”. First off, using the word “survival” can almost never be a positive thing. That word is something you would read in a zombie comic or on a video game, definitely not a news article of this topic. The lead of the story reads “Planned Parenthood is grappling with how to survive in the era of Donald Trump”. Immediately after reading the headline and the lead, the reader would definitely see how bad Trump is and what him being president means. Using words like “survival” and “grappling” add a negative vibe to the whole article and shows a bias against Trump and his plans.

The Washington Post ran a similar article but with more factual information rather than bias information. First off, let’s compare the diction of the headline in this article to the one of The Hill. The Washington Post’s headline reads “Trump signs executive order defunding International Planned Parenthood”. With this headline, it is very straight to the point and has no real bias towards or against Trump. Comparing the two headlines does show a very drastic difference. The word choice that The Washington Post chose was very factual and neutral. The lead of this article is definitely more lengthy than the one of The Hill. Portion of the lead is “ Trump signed an executive order on Monday barring federal funds from organizations that promote abortion around the world, including the International Planned Parenthood Federation”. No real negative word choice or any hint of bias. The lead of the story is practically informing the reader of what happened and what they plan on talking about in the article. If someone were to read this article alone the bias wouldn’t have such a big impact on them compared to The Hill.

I know by this point you’re thinking to yourself “who cares about bias? there’s bias in everything we read”. While that is true, it’s your choice whether you want to consume the wrong kind of bias. If the whole world only read the article from The Hill then we wouldn’t be a good informed citizen. If both of these articles were read then the reader would have a better sense of what is really going on. Overall, you have the choice of whether you want to believe a negative and bias article or if you want to know the facts and the real scoop on whats happening.

One clap, two clap, three clap, forty?

By clapping more or less, you can signal to us which stories really stand out.