Upon reading the article “Survivors unite at ‘anti-Kavanaugh rally,’” I have a couple things that I would like to say about issues or bias within the article.

The first problem is the phrase in the article “with more allegations (against Kavanaugh) rising to the surface since”. There have been two other allegations and one has been discredited. “More allegations” imply more than one credible accusation and gives a false impression.

The next issue is the statement “After the confrontation he (Sen. Jeff Flake) had a change of heart, pushing for an investigation of the allegations before the vote of Kananaugh (Kavanaugh) onto the Supreme Court.” Senator Flake changed from “Yes” to “maybe but leaning yes.” Flake confirmed he is voting “Yes” on Kavanaugh today. “Change of heart” creates a false impression that Flake completely changed.

Another statement: “People of all genders, races, ethnicities and backgrounds were present.” Obviously, people of all backgrounds at least were not present. This word choice is to inflate the amount of people involved. Many backgrounds were represented, not all. This creates a false impression.

Last word choice issue: “The students gathered, some cried and some laughed, but they all remained as one.” How could the reporter possibly know “they all remained as one”? That statement reads more like propaganda than a serious attempt to relay the news.

The article also has no indication on why people would disagree with this rally. If the Daily wants to promote this protest as a moral act, at least attempt to let people know why someone could disagree. The facts are there have been no corroboration for the accusations, or the denials from Kavanaugh. It is he-said vs. she-said. The question is whether a mere accusation is enough to disqualify someone. The Innocence Project reports that 75 percent of false imprisonments are from false testimony. Due process is important and without evidence, it is entirely plausible that someone could support Kavanaugh.

This article from the Iowa State Daily shows bias. Students on campus feel strongly about this issue. This was shown with the students who showed up to the College Democrats protest. I applaud them for using their right to the freedom of speech to do something they think is politically productive. If one of the above things were in the article I would give the benefit of the doubt, but the fact that all the bias was in one direction is highly suspect and does not look well for the Daily.

The Daily has an important job and I enjoy reading it almost every day. I hope this can be a reminder to fairly cover controversial issues. I will also echo the call to students on campus to turn out and vote. We have the privilege to vote, let’s not waste it.