One of them only introduces facts. The other adds flavor. Whether or not you consider the titles relatively neutral, one does introduce bias relative to the other one.

Introducing Walz as a VP hopeful sounds like they're describing a Palin-level government official, not someone who has been active in politics for years.

[–] Awesomo85@sh.itjust.works 18 points 6 hours ago* (last edited 6 hours ago) (2 children)

Exactly! Additionally, the visual cues that are obviously being used paint a very different picture.

Propaganda isn't really difficult. It just requires a predisposed audience.

[–] juliebean@lemm.ee 3 points 4 hours ago

they're presenting the candidates differently, sure, but i honestly don't know who you think this is favouring.

[–] Glifted@lemmy.world 9 points 5 hours ago (1 children)

If I understand you correctly you seem to be implying this is more favorable to Vance? However, if I read this and didn't know anything about either of them I would tend to look more favorably towards Waltz more as his "Highschool Coach" experience makes him seem more relatable whereas Vance is just some politician. I guess I'm not so convinced this is an obvious example of propaganda.

[–] And009@reddthat.com -1 points 5 hours ago

When enough people think like that, the way of presenting would change. For now, seems you're in the minority

[–] Asafum@feddit.nl 4 points 6 hours ago

Introducing Walz as a VP hopeful sounds like they’re describing a Palin-level government official, not someone who has been active in politics for years.

They did the same to Vance though. Isn't he a Senator? They didn't mention that, just that he's somebody hoping to be Trump's VP. They also provided what I would see as a positive point for Walz: a football coach. That could be taken as he has an interest in teaching others, possibly children, but they don't specify there.

I'd have to agree, however much I know media is biased, that this one is fairly neutral.