*Italicized text is taken directly from NY Times. All credit is given to NY Times and Jim Tankersley/Emily Cochrane*
President Biden offered a series of concessions in attempts to secure a $1 trillion infrastructure deal with Senate Republicans in an Oval Office meeting this week, narrowing both his spending and tax proposals, as negotiations barreled into the final days of what could be an improbable agreement or a blame game that escalates quickly.
The bias begins with the author’s diction. The word choice provides a perspective of misfortune and already losing traction in the given problem. This also collaborates with the issue saying that the Republicans will be winning this battle on infrastructure spending, even when discussions are still occurring. The authors are immediately biased to the Republican side of the issue in this introduction paragraph. Words such as “improbable agreement” and “escalates quickly” also demonstrate a sense of hostility to the situation, which is not applicable at this moment.
A deal still appears to be a long shot, with potential tax increases the biggest hurdle to winning the kind of Republican support that Mr. Biden has said he is seeking. But the continued movement underscored his hopes for a revival of bipartisanship.
The bias continues by reiterating that the legislation that is being attempted in Congress will be a difficult path to passing. The author then reaches into the issue of creating a common ground with both major parties, saying that the infrastructure legislation is a bigger part of the overall agenda for his Presidency, associating his Presidency with failure, starting with this bill. The last sentence starts a continuing conversation about bipartisanship and Mr. Biden’s relationship with it. The Republican side in this article is pictured as an uninvolved character that refuses to accept the terms, whereas the Democrats are pictured as heavily involved and can do as much as possible. The President is stuck in the middle, doing nothing and showing a weak spot in his leadership according to the authors.
The discussions have unsettled some progressive Democrats, who are pushing Mr. Biden to abandon talks and move his economic plan through the budget reconciliation process, which would allow it to pass with only Democratic votes. They questioned whether a compromise struck with Ms. Capito could secure the 10 Republican votes needed to pass a bill through normal Senate procedures and argued that Republicans had done little to move closer to the White House on the amount of new spending or how to finance it.
The bias against President Biden is apparent, since the beginning of the paragraph now explains that there is a bipartisan battle against his infrastructure bill. The Democrats are now arguing that it is not progressive enough. The compromise with Mr. Capito shows that the author is framing the Republicans as people who are right and that the decisive infrastructure bill should be battled out and is currently being discussed as a riff in the Democratic party.
Republicans have complained that Mr. Biden is not willing to reduce his spending demands to a degree they could support, and they have been surprised at his continued resistance to raising gas taxes and other fees that have traditionally supported some infrastructure programs. As of Thursday afternoon, it was unclear whether Republicans would compile another counterproposal.
In this paragraph, the authors now reiterate the side of the Republicans and explain it in a way that entices the reader to side with them. On the contrary, the reasons stated do not make sense in the perspective of the infrastructure bill. Gas taxes and other fees are controlled by each respective state and those taxes can be spent on things that are not infrastructure. It is also putting the ball in the court of the Democrats, maintaining the idea and perspective that the Democrats have the lower hand and are seemingly functionless by just continuously blaming the other side.
Mr. Biden is seeking to achieve bipartisanship or exhaust its possibilities, in part to secure votes from Democratic senators like Joe Manchin III of West Virginia and Kyrsten Sinema of Arizona, who have insisted on including Republicans in the infrastructure effort.
Now the authors are reaching over the idea of blaming one party and now continuing to blame the President who is making sure to consider ideas from other representatives to make sure to pass this legislation. The authors are framing the President in a way that makes the Republicans look strong and independent while suggesting that the Democrats are impatient and weak. With this, the authors are framing President Biden to be a weak leader and ineffective uniter in a torn country.
Written by: Lucas Antonio