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.