“WASHINGTON–A transformative health care bill is headed to President Barack Obama for his signature as Congress takes the final steps in Democrats’ improbable and history-making push for near-universal medical coverage. On the cusp of succeeding where numerous past congresses and administrations have failed, jubilant House Democrats voted 219-212 late Sunday to send legislation to Obama that would extend coverage to 32 million uninsured Americans, reduce deficits and ban insurance company practices such as denying coverage to people with pre-existing medical conditions.”–Associated Press, March 22, 2010

“LANSING, Mich.–In an audacious flex of political muscle, Republicans in a single day reached the brink of a goal that for years has seemed an all-but-impossible dream: making the labor bastion of Michigan a right-to-work state. The GOP majority used its superior numbers and backing from Gov. Rick Snyder to ramrod legislation through the House and Senate on Thursday, brushing aside denunciations and walkouts by helpless Democrats and cries of outrage from union activists who swarmed the state Capitol hallways and grounds. At one point, police used pepper spray to subdue demonstrators who tried to rush the Senate chamber.”–Associated Press, Dec. 7, 2012

Idiotic. But not surprising.

That’s interesting; I read the second as having an almost triumphalist bias in favor of the GOP, portraying Democrats as weak and desperate.

CNSNews.com doesn’t seem to mind how the story was written.

For what it’s worth, the two examples look to me like examples of the two different sorts of leads.

Sense of humor appreciated.

OK, Lamonster, are you up to a serious analysis of the story?

I do question the use of the word “ramrod,” but I find it in keeping with the graphic sort of lead that my first link addresses.

The narrative in the third paragraph singles out a man who yelled, “Heil Hitler.” That could be construed as making union supporters appear crazy and marginal.

Choice of words often reflects bias, whether intentional or subconscious. For example, “the witness said” is considered to be journalistically neutral, whereas “the witness claimed” is generally considered to cast doubt or suggest bias against the quoted individual’s statements.

For example, sixth paragraph: “[W]here the 2010 election and tea party movement produced assertive Republican majorities that have dealt unions one body blow after another.” I consider “assertive” to be a relatively positive term. Had the writer chosen the word “ruthless” or “aggressive,” I would sense a negative shade of bias.

Paragraphs 10 and 11: The Republican governor “told.” The Republican lawmakers leading the legislation “said.” Those are considered to be objective, neutral words. Democrats, on the other hand, “contended.” It’s not the worst verb, but not exactly admiring, either.

Democrats “stormed” out of the chamber. Again, that does not read like a positive depiction to me.

The story ends on a neutral note for Democrats. Union spokespersons and Democrats are quoted as “saying.”

Interestingly, Associated Press is now shying away from the words “homophobia” and “ethnic cleansing” in it’s journalistic style guidelines.

“Really, guys, how about taking some personal responsibility for failure for a change, instead of making excuses?” AD

So in the future, Republicans should effort to spend even more money that his country does not have? Instead of running up the debt to 9 trillion, they should instead try and run the debt to 16 trillion? The Democrats keep saying we are in this mess because Bush took the debt from 5 trillion to 9 trillion paying for unfunded wars and Medicare Part D. Yet we are still in those two unfunded wars, expanded Medicare Part D, and have added multiple unfunded stimulus packages, an unfunded Universal Health Care package, and 100 months of unfunded unemployment insurance. What unfunded mandate do you suggest the Republicans should adopt in order to make them more likable? Unlimited unfunded condoms and abortions for all??

You won’t see abuse of the word “racist” coming from me, faulty memories of the Bircher crowd notwithstanding.

“Homophobia” isn’t my favorite word, either, the existence of authentic textbook homophobes also notwithstanding. However, I’d say that its use in the media is offset by the equally prevalent use of the inordinately complimentary adjective, “pro-family.”

I am not sure much introspection is needed, given the following:

1. All our problems are because the 1% are not paying their fair share.
2. Meaningful cuts to entitlements are not needed if the 1% would pay their fair share.
3. Runaway deficits don’t matter.
Given these three “truths” its surprising Romney got any votes at all.
But no excuses now. Obama owns it.

Same can be said about the governance in California.

http://blogs.sacbee.com/capitolalertlatest/2012/12/california-revenues-lag-due-to-facebook-corporate-refunds.html

For the first five months of the fiscal year, the state has taken in $802.4 million less in revenues than expected, equal to 2.6 percent. The State Controller’s Office also says the state has spent $2,100 million more than expected.

2,100 million more in spending than expected. But we always seem to have a revenue problem, not a spending problem. And they blame the shortfall in revenues on Facebook!!
Responsibility now, not excuses.
The Democrats own it…

Starting page 2