These are good points. I think the claims are a bit bold. I do think the "active vs passive voice" is an interesting metric, since it seems intuitively a bit h

These are good points. I think the claims are a bit bold. I do think the "active vs passive voice" is an interesting metric, since it seems intuitively a bit harder to know why that would differ for the two groups. As I noted below, in the US it's common to note that the phrase "officer-involved shooting" (i.e., passive voice) is often used to describe cases where police officers shoot someone, but "dog-involved biting" is rarely used to describe the case where a dog bites someone. This strikes me as a convincing (though perhaps not ironclad) argument for how such metrics—which are seemingly independent of the rate of mentions (which itself could be reflecting world events)—can shed light on authorial bias. I think you could construct similar "event-independent" metrics; for example, are victims of violence more or less likely to be named when they are of one group or another? Are direct quotes from spokespeople more likely to be used from one group or another? Etc. I generally argue against trying to make all journalism just "impartial he-said, she-said", so I'm a little uncomfortable with this exercise, but, again, the "officer-involved shooting" case is one where very clear language bias seems to affect the discourse.