Political bias

By: Shauna Agan

During this presidential election, I have seen both candidates being advertised in many different ways. One way is through magazines that appeal to the younger generation of voters, particularly the female group.

I think that featuring the candidates through different feature stories and articles in magazines such as Cosmopolitan is a great way to generate knowledge about the candidates to the voters.

Although this is a great way to get messages out, I do not agree when the messages are biased. I understand that most political articles are biased to a certain extent. It is very hard for a writer not to show any bias at all in a political article.

This bias I am referring to is what I am going to call a hidden bias. This is where the writer uses certain words such as “promises” and “pledges for one candidate, and “refused” for the other candidate.

The article “How the Candidates Stand on Women’s Rights” in my November issue of Cosmopolitan magazine is a perfect example of showing a hidden bias.

In this article, Cosmopolitan address how both Sen. John McCain and Sen. Barack Obama stand when it comes to women’s rights issues. The issues discussed are access to contraception, reproductive rights, pay equity, Title IX, and domestic violence.

I am not arguing the legitimacy or the truth that Cosmopolitan expresses as the stances of the two candidates. The part that I disagree with is the verb choices used to explain the stances of these men.

When discussing access to contraception, it said McCain, “Refused to address why Viagra may sometimes be covered while birth control may not”. The article said that Obama, “promises to require birth-control coverage by insurance companies”.

Although there are more examples than just these, there is one more example I would like to share. When discussing Title IX, the article said Obama will “urge compliance” with this law.

When referring to McCain’s stance on Title IX, the article said that he finds “flaws” but does not point out what these flaws he finds in the law are. It is important to point out the flaws he finds because by just saying McCain finds flaws, the article insinuates that he does not like the bill. This may or may not be the case, but a little more explanation would clear this up.

This article is definitely biased towards Obama. It tries to make the women voters believe that McCain is going to take away their rights while showing Obama at the opposite extreme.
I am all for articles communicating to voters where the candidates stand, but I do not agree with articles like this one that steer readers towards one candidate by using certain words. If an article wants to promote a candidate, they should just do it.