I was very impressed and interested in your group's presentation the other day. It seems to me that your group is taking a different perspective towards similar philosophical questions as my group, immigration station. As such, I am curious as to how your group navigates or identifies what constitutes as emotionally charged language. Naturally, I think most may agree that one will invariably know it when they see it. At the same time however, defining emotionally charged in and of itself can be subject to individual's implicit biases- at least considerably more so than identifying verbs for example. Likewise, our group found ourselves in a somewhat subjective position in our attempts to identify the commonly held tropes uttered in immigration rhetoric.
In keeping with the question of biases I propose this question- Which articles or news stories were chosen for analysis? Could the story itself already consist of an ideological leaning, even before a given news outlet writes an article? For example, the issue concerning Trump's taxes has been seemingly most important to liberal and democratic constituencies. As a result has your group seen a disproportionate amount of liberal outlets publishing stories on his taxes with a general absence from conservative counterparts? Could this pose problematic in potentially skewing results? Or perhaps noticeable disparities in terms of overall coverage of a given issue between media outlets with differing ideologies could prove to be an important point for analysis. Keep up the good work guys!
Hey all,
-Chris Montgomery