PressEthic

CNN.com ran an article today about the fact that the Repulican party had three black candidates running this election and all of them lost. The article accuses the Republican party of trying to tout these black candidates as the new face of the repulican party in order to get more votes. Whether this is true or not is not the issue here. The problem is that the article used pretty loaded terms and phrases that suggest the author's point of view on the issue. The article makes Republicans sound ridiculous for trying to brand 2006 as the year of the black republican- their words not mine. The way the entire article is written it makes fun of the Republicans efforts. I am not a republican but I find it interesting that I can make an educated guess which side of the coin CNN.com supports or at least what side the journalist supports- and I shouldn't be able to. Yes, the article is pointing the facts out but the way it is written is very sarcastic and emotionally charged. I think the language could have been more objective. The article uses words such as brand and touted which are pretty accusational about the underlining reason the Republicans are trying to highlight their black candidates. I just wonder if this article is biased because when reading it I definitely felt the sarcasm and notice the loaded language used to make the point.