Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response. I agree, I think your notes are reasonable. Your notes show that both articles are concerned with the huma

Thank you for the thoughtful and detailed response. I agree, I think your notes are reasonable. Your notes show that both articles are concerned with the human impact of the poll closures. For example, in the Texas Tribune article, I think the first (and last) paragraphs that you categorized as "neutral fluff" are meant to highlight the impact on "rural and young voters" that are mentioned in the article title. The article doesn't mention "minorities" or "black and Latino" voters. In contrast, the Guardian article focuses on the impact on "minorities" and more specifically, the "black and Latino population." It doesn't mention rural or young voters. Looking a bit deeper, I realized both articles are part of larger series which indicates to me that instead of "news reporting", these articles are motivated by a certain type of advocacy. The Guardian article is part of "The Fight to Vote" series and the Texas Tribune article is part of the "Texas Voting Rights" series. Since both articles focus on the human impact of certain demographics, I think how one perceives the articles as slanted most likely depends on personal perspective. For example, given the issue of voting rights and the well documented efforts to disenfranchise minority voters [0], I'd interpret an article that mentions the poll closures along party lines ("unanimous Republican support") but does not mention the potential impact on minority voters as slanted. My takeaway is that both articles are "slanted", just in different ways and most likely in ways that conform to the expectations of their respective readerships. [0]: Some Republicans Acknowledge Leveraging Voter ID Laws for Political Gain https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-acknowledge-leveraging-voter-id-laws-for-political-gain.html https://www.nytimes.com/2016/09/17/us/some-republicans-ackno...