I literally said I read the article. It's in my post. Maybe if you read my post instead of the first sentence, you'd realize what I dislike is the use of double-negatives generally.
I wish articles wouldn't use double negatives like this.
Is "approval" at a 57 year low, or is "disapproval" low? Meaning, if disapproval is low, does that mean more people approve now?
I did read the article, by the way. I just feel like the wording could be better. I'm glad to see approval is so high. I wish access to unions was better.
This is a form of bias on their part. They think or say it's being balanced, but the lack of full factual disclosure is a choice. Bias can show up in other ways, too.
The length of a segment, for example. How long a topic is covered shows bias through emphasis or lack of emphasis.
Omission of details, over-covering points of view while ignoring others, when a story is covered, who covers the story, etc., may all seem unimportant, but they are choices.
Bias isn't necessarily bad if it's factual. To your point, someone should be stating who this individual was - even just generally - and state something along the lines of what you're saying to refute the "mentally ill" allegations.
I have no idea what the hell is happening in this drawing. I remember this issue back in the day and never thought twice about it... but look at that leg armor. WTAF is going on with that torso. The shoulder pads are there to prevent the head from turning... the gun arm just boggles the mind.
Edit: If I didn't know better, I would have guessed this was created by AI.
Yes, made with pulverized grain wheat flour dust