# data[].attributes.body
In the center article, the source showed its bias, or lack thereof, by what was included and excluded. It compared multiple sources, such as Republican senators and Democrat minority leaders. By addressing both sides, it increases its reliability as a source.

# data[].attributes.body
The last article is far right because it acknowledges that Trump made a mistake with his action but uses "what-about-ism" to take blame away from Trump and assign it to another group. He pushes blame onto the Left side by associating them with Antifa, an anarchist group not assigned with a political party. This goes with the 8th category, what is included and what is left out, because they choose to include information about antifa and leave out information regarding Trump's actions.

# data[].attributes.body
This article really had no bias. CBS News did a good job by putting quotes from both sides so it didn’t really show an opinion.

# data[].attributes.body
When including quotes it came from 2 Republics and 2 Democrats

# data[].attributes.body
“Seems to me,”
"if you are preparing... to write a comment saying I’m calling Social Justice Warriors the equivalent of neo-Nazis, a) you’re wrong, and b) I’m not going to publish it,”
Very personal, refusing to address people who are against him, clearly shows his own bias

# data[].attributes.body
'"alleged" white supremacist' shows they don't believe accusations.

Selective information that makes Trump look good
"he's a good person" and talking about how Trump just made a mistake instead of the whole story.

# data[].attributes.body
In the center article, the article does not have a clear bias. There are slight hints of biased claims, but they serve more as descriptors than opinions.

# data[].attributes.body
There seems to be some bias but there is bias from both sides and there are points of view and quotes from both sides also.

# data[].attributes.body
In the far left article, the author denounces the protesting group by using the words “maim” and “injure” when speaking on the intent of the driver. The author uses the word “plowed” to deem it as a malicious act of violence that should be denounced by the president as an act of terrorism by white supremacists.

# data[].attributes.body
The article described the protest as a “bloodshed” which demonstrates that there was a slight bias because there are different ways that the protest could have been described as, but the choice of “bloodshed” brings forward that there is a bias to describe an event that occurred at the protest.

# data[].attributes.body
The centrist article example shows a degree of unbiasness by quote multiple different parties. For example they quote the White House, two Republicans, two Democrats, and the University of Virginia.

# data[].attributes.body
Included former KKK leader (Duke) Tweet

# data[].attributes.body
The adjective “plowed” was used to describe the car going through the crowd. They said that the car was aggressive when driving through the crowd and this negative connotation describes the negative feeling toward the white nationalists.

# data[].attributes.body
In article from the far left, it says “On Saturday afternoon, Neo-nazis, white-nationalists, and open-carrying, camo-wearing militia members combine forces at Charlottesville, Virginia, rally to “Unite the Right”. By saying that it sheds a negative light onto the side of the protesters.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article, it criticizes the president actions by” Mr.Trump was alone, without his wife and young son, and consuming hours of television, with many on cable news telling him he had not done enough.”

# data[].attributes.body
When referring to President Trump, they call him Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.body
The quote from all the other sources is different

# data[].attributes.body
In the center article there is a tweet included by Republican Cory Gardner who said, “Mr. President- we must call evil by its name. These were white supremacists and this was done by domestic terrorism.” This tweet was included to show how even some republicans disagreed with Trump’s way of handling the situation

# data[].attributes.body
Refer to POTUS, as President Donald Trump

# data[].attributes.body
Includes when Hawaiian (D) Senator tweet that he is disgusted

# data[].attributes.body
They refer to Trump’s statement defending his words as erasing “any good will he had earned Monday when he named racist groups and called them ‘repugnant to all we held dear’”

# data[].attributes.body
“Bloodshed” shows it was a tragedy for both sides and that it should involve the whole country

# data[].attributes.body
The arrangement of this article stated an opinion and then further emphasized it by stating that “even members of Trump’s own military appeared to take quick offense”. By showing that Trump does not even have the support of his own party, the source shows a bias in favor of the left.

# data[].attributes.body
In the article “Trump Defends Initial Remarks on Charlottesville:Again blames “Both Sides”, the writers of The New York Times, sneakily accuses Trump of putting more blame on the left by stating, “Venting, his face red as he personally executed the defense of his own actions that no one else would, Mr. Trump all but erased any good will he had earned Monday when he named racist groups and called them “repugnant to everything we hold dear.” By using the word “racist” and the phrase “erased any good will he had earned” further emphasizes their leftist view of the tragic event that occurred in Charlottesville.