I find it important to call out any media bias no matter how “tepid” you may find it.
It’s the deluge of “tepid” examples of bias that makes us complacent when what you might consider “real bias” comes up and goes unnoticed and/or unquestioned.
Here’s the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.
Of all the examples of media bias you could have chosen, this is the most tepid.
I find it important to call out any media bias no matter how “tepid” you may find it.
It’s the deluge of “tepid” examples of bias that makes us complacent when what you might consider “real bias” comes up and goes unnoticed and/or unquestioned.
Then why not start with those ones?
Likely because they aren’t as in your face or recent, and this just happened to be the first thing they saw in their feed?
Here’s the thing though: I have no idea which way you think this is biased without reading more of your analysis. Initially I thought you meant the BBC was biased against Vance because it made Walz look more relatable.