Partisan lines drawn in media coverage of Texas redistricting: Bias Breakdown

Texas’ effort to redraw its congressional district map has generated strong reactions from both political parties and the partisan media. The coverage reveals narratives at play, and several common types of media bias in stories from sources on both sides of the spectrum.

Viewpoint omission and subjective language

The New York Times published a story on Texas’ redistricting with the headline, “Texas Republicans Unveil Gerrymandered House Map, Trying to Please Trump.” Calling the map gerrymandered and saying Republicans are trying to please Trump is an identified media bias.

These terms, without clear attribution, represent bias through subjective qualifying adjectives and mind-reading — the outlet applies opinion-based terms and assumptions as fact. The article quotes seven voices critical of the map but only one supportive perspective from Gov. Greg Abbott, demonstrating viewpoint omission that may influence readers toward a negative view of the redistricting plan.

Opinion as fact and sensationalist language

The New York Post published a story on Democrats leaving Texas to stall a vote on the new district map with the headline, “Kathy Hochul welcomes Texas Dems in redistricting publicity stunt to jab Trump.”

This framing suggests the Democrats’ walkout was a political performance. This is an example of bias by opinion statements presented as fact, as identified by media watchdog group AllSides. Bias by presenting opinion as fact is when a news outlet states a belief or assumption as if it were a proven fact — without clearly attributing it to someone. Saying “Democrats staged a publicity stunt” is opinion. But if it’s not quoted or attributed, it’s framed as fact — even though others might see it differently.

Sensationalism is a form of media bias where outlets use emotionally charged or exaggerated language to grab attention. It often makes a story sound more dramatic than it actually is.

In the New York Post headline, the word “jab” is an example of sensationalism, as AllSides describes the term. It suggests an aggressive or combative act, even though New York Democratic Gov. Kathy Hochul’s comments may have been more routine political criticism. A more neutral term like “responded to” or “criticized” would convey the same idea without emotionally charged wording.

Using a word like “jab” can lead readers to view Hochul’s actions as more hostile or confrontational than they were, which is why it’s considered a form of bias through sensationalism.

Redistricting issue is politically charged

These examples show how media bias — through language choices, selective sourcing and framing — can shape public understanding of politically charged issues like redistricting. It can become harder for audiences to separate information from influence when headlines use loaded terms, when coverage highlights only one side, or when assumptions are presented as facts.

Spotting these patterns isn’t just helpful — it really matters. In today’s media landscape, how a story is told can influence public opinion just as much as the facts themselves. Asking questions about what’s included, what’s left out and how something is worded can help you stay informed — without being misled by bias.