Partisan lines drawn in media coverage of Texas redistricting: Bias Breakdown

Hey, welcome back to Bias Breakdown

Today, let's talk about Texas. Texas state Republicans today unveiled their proposal

for this new congressional map. Texas is looking to redraw its congressional district map

in a special session, but the vote to approve its new map

is being held up by state Democrats. Unless there is a quorum of two thirds

of all members in attendance, the state house can't hold any votes

That's why the Texas Democrats packed their bags and left Texas. What started in Texas is now sparking a nationwide showdown

The Texas Tribune has new reporting that California Governor Gavin Newsom has told

aides he will move forward with a plan to redraw his state's congressional lines to install more

Democrats. There are states that are now looking at potentially changing their maps. You heard

Jeffries referred to New York, but also New Jersey. He also told me about New Jersey is a possibility

We're also hearing about Minnesota and Washington State. California is at the core of this too

You want the facts. What's all the fuss about in Texas? How does it impact me

When people are wanting answers and reliable information, the news is supposed to be a valuable resource

That's when our jobs become most important. But media bias has tainted people's perception of the news

And as you're about to see, you wouldn't be wrong to feel jaded by partisan news outlets

You're about to see a slew of media bias surrounding this redistricting fight

that might make you think twice about your news consumption habits. Join Straight Arrow News. See the slant. Avoid the bias

When others skew the facts, we give you the truth down the center. Welcome to Bias Breakdown

Let's go ahead and lay out a few of the diverging narratives and then get into the media bias specifics

Let's start with what left-leaning media want you to take away from what's happening in Texas

They're amplifying the arguments against Texas redrawing its district lines, criticizing it as gerrymandering

or rigging the map in the party's favor. I think if things continue the way they are

we'll have a heavily gerrymandered state. Yeah, this is an existential crisis for our democracy

I think Donald Trump is trying to steal the election. Voices on right-leaning networks are defending the redistricting efforts

mocking Democrats' walkout strategy as political theater, and accuse blue states of gerrymandering

And now, runaway drama queens. This is all the Democrats have. Stunts, play acting, and tantrums for TikTok

Let us be clear here. Here's elected Democrats. They're wasting valuable taxpayer money and time for yet another stage political stunt

that will ultimately change nothing. Put the map back up of Illinois. That looked like an earthworm on LSD connecting blue cities

If you look at that map of Illinois, which I pointed out on America's Newsroom today

that Republicans won in about 47 percent of the popular vote in 2024, but they only hold 17 percent of the seats

So you have an idea of the narratives from left and right media telling the story with the goal of convincing you one political side is right and the other is wrong Now let look deeper into a few write on the story and pinpoint the media bias and talk about it First we have this

from the New York Times, a news outlet on the left. And you don't have to look far to find our

first form of bias. Bias by subjective qualifying adjectives as identified by media watchdog groups

But in other more simple words, it's an adjective that is based on opinion

It casts a certain judgment on whatever the adjective is being used to describe

In this case, the Times calls the new map gerrymandered in its headline

The Times is offering the left's opinion on the Texas map. That term implies that Texas manipulated and unfairly redrew its maps

when really, it's the opinion of those on the left that Texas is attempting to gerrymander

Those on the right largely aren't saying the map is gerrymandered. Yet the Times chose to amplify the left's perception without attribution

Now, if the Times were to say Democrats say the House map is gerrymandered, then it's fair game

Without attribution, the Times inserts its own opinion into the story right away

So let's stay on the headline for a moment longer. Texas Republicans unveiled gerrymandered House map trying to please Trump

This last added bit to the headline is also biased. Bias by mind reading

More simply put, the Times is making assumptions and speculating that Texas Republicans are doing this just to please Trump

Democrats say the GOP is only doing this because Trump said so

The Republicans aren't saying this is for Trump. In fact, the Times even cites an Abbott interview where he emphasized the decision had nothing to do with Trump

So the Times was making assumptions or mind reading not based on facts, but based on political opinion

Headlines are important to talk about. Because as I've mentioned before on our show, studies have shown when it comes to consuming the news

up to 75% of people don't click past the headline. I feel like I should pause a minute so we can fully digest that

That would mean for most of the people who saw this story, they didn't look past the headline

Instead, they took the Times at face value, with media biases embedded in bold font

Readers weren't getting the facts. They were fed a left perspective over the issue, presented as fact

But let's say you're part of the 25% who actually clicked the Times article and read it through

You'd find another form of media bias within the article. Bias by viewpoint omission

The Times quoted seven voices against Texas redistricting. The Times quoted one voice for it, with one quote from the governor

The Times is largely omitting voices and perspectives on the other side of the argument

Bias by omission can occur when there is unequal coverage of one side

Now, it's typically not normal reading behavior to keep a tally on how many political perspectives are shared in a news article

So for some readers here the lack of perspective from the other political side could persuade them to agree with one of these seven voices they heard against the redistricting Really all of these things are basic rules of journalism Be careful

when using subjective adjectives, and really it's largely best to avoid them altogether

If there's an opinion statement in your story, it better be attributed to somebody else and offer

equal balanced coverage. So just as I'm preaching that here, let's flip the script

To balance this story, it's time to look into a right news outlet's coverage

The New York Post wrote, Kathy Hochul welcomes Texas Dems in redistricting publicity stunt to jab Trump

The Post accuses the New York governor and Democrats of being involved in a publicity stunt

This is an example of media bias by presenting opinion statements as fact

It's a personal opinion of Republicans that Democrats fleeing Texas or the presser with Hochul is all a publicity stunt

So that statement is based on personal opinion and assumption. It's not objective or a fact

Hochul and other Democrats wouldn't call this a stunt. So the Post is offering a right perspective right off the bat

Staying on this news headline, saying Hochul did this to take a jab at Trump

is an example of sensationalism, another form of bias. The word jab is a strong, sensationalized word choice that provokes emotion out of readers

It's a more dramatic term than a more neutral descriptor would be

It's an example of shocking or exaggerated language. While Hochul did mention Trump about a dozen times during her press conference

saying she was taking jabs is sensationalist. So again, if someone were to only read the news headline

they're already getting a biased view of Hochul's presser by stating opinions as fact and using overdramatic language to stoke emotion

Then if you read through the post coverage, you'll notice selective reporting

Hochul said her state is now looking at redistricting too. which the Post frames as a retaliatory stunt against Texas

But the paper fails to explain why New York is considering the move in the first place

What's missing? The fact that Texas' new map could net the GOP five additional House seats

a central motivation behind New York's response. By leaving out that key context, the Post engages in bias by omission of information

excluding a critical fact that would help explain the other side's point of view and actions

So what are some of the key facts to this story? On July 9th, Governor Abbott announced the state's special session agenda

On it, redistricting, saying Texas needs a revised map in light of constitutional concerns raised by the DOJ

The DOJ sent this letter to Abbott on July 7th, listing four Texas districts that it deemed unconstitutional coalition districts and urging the state of Texas to rectify the map

Since the last time that we did redistricting the law has changed It says that coalition districts are no longer required And so we want to make sure that we have maps that don impose coalition districts while at the very same time ensuring that we will maximize the ability of Texans to be able to vote for the candidate of their choice

On July 15th, President Trump was asked about Texas redistricting, voicing support for a redrawing, and said there would be a path for Texas Republicans to pick up five extra House seats

How many more seats do you want the Republicans to draw? Texas would be the biggest one

Are you calling them for a complete redrawing of the congressional map

No, no, just a very simple redrawing. We pick up five seats. While it is legal for Texas to redraw, Democrats quickly came out against it

And now prominent Democrats outside of Texas are calling it an all-out redistricting war

This is a war. We are at war. Texas Democrats have left the state of Texas to postpone the vote on the newly drawn map

And that's where things currently stand, a vote in limbo. And as explained by CNN's Harry Enten, if it does go through, it could have nationwide implications

You might think five seats is just five seats. But keep in mind this, margins are spared for the House majority

In 2020, the Democrats had four seats. 2022, Republicans had four seats

This time around, two seats for Republicans out of the 2024 elections

Five seats can make all the difference in the world. While the word gerrymander has been thrown around a lot here, and it does have a negative connotation

gerrymandering district maps is not illegal by default. And strategically drawing lines is nothing new

Under the newly proposed Texas map, Democrats could wind up holding just 21% of the state's U.S. House seats

But in the last election, Democrats won 42% of the vote. That kind of mismatch between votes and representation is not unique to Texas

In California, Republicans won 38% of the vote, but hold only 17% of the state's House seats

And in Illinois, Republicans got 44% of the vote, but hold just 18% of the House seats

The Texas redistricting story is consuming the news cycle, and their strong opinions from those on the political left and right over the issue

Now the media is making those politically charged arguments for and against

with headlines construed in a way that reveal a partisan lean. News outlets use several forms of media bias with the goal to persuade rather than inform

And that's your bias breakdown. Thank you for watching this week's episode

Remember to first be notified of new episodes dropping. download the Straight Arrow News app

and sign up for notifications to our podcast. And if you're a Spotify or Apple podcast user

then remember we're available on these podcast apps as well. I saw last week, a few of you wrote in the YouTube comments

that you'd be sharing our podcast with those that you know. So thank you so much for spreading the word

about what we're doing here. And a big thank you to our video editor, Ian Kennedy

and Heath Carey for taking care of all of our graphics needs this week

Y'all are the best. And thank you so much for watching this week's episode. We'll see you next time