"Why the White House is not on the war path over Iran"

Five words that signify bias:

1. saber-rattling
2. literally (bulldozed into the ground)
3. bellicose
4. "spiral out of control"
5. plunge

In the article "Why the White House is not on the war path over Iran" by Mark Mardell generally recounts Mardell's attempt to learn more about the US government's attitude towards Iran now that it has been revealed that they have a nuclear energy program.  He describe's Israel's threat to attack Iran over this program as "saber-rattling" which suggests that the threat is just a threat and nothing more.  Mardell conveys the sense that this new nuclear program in Iran is for energy, stating that the buildings and research centers used for Iran's old nuclear weapons program have been "literally bulldozed into the ground" - the word "literally" is used to actually describe what happened and also emphasize how over the nuclear weapons program in Iran seems to be.  Mardell says that the White House couldn't hardly be less bellicose - or war-like - concerning Iran as he's been told that any military response would only provide a situation that could "spiral out of control" and help "plunge" western economies into another recession.  The choice of colorful words with their specific negative connotations, in context with the question of how likely a military response from the US is, further illustrate the writer's conclusion that Iran's nuclear program is not a threat and that any larger situation arising from this as being unlikely.

Looking for Bias while Reading with a Dictionary

I chose the article “Obama Gets the Hang of War” by the CNN columnist Frida Ghitis for my bias summary. As the title insinuates, Obama has gone from being the sweetheart of the word, a monument to change and a beacon of hope for the world to rally around, to the same old political ‘Joe’ with an itchy trigger finger. In a sense the article is stating bias by declaring Obama is getting the hang of something the writer disapproves of regarding current actions of the president, and alleges that Obama adds another notch to his belt every time he uses force to persuade other countries, as if it’s a game. The author vividly reveals his bias when he takes Obama’s direct quote (“We don’t take any options off the table.”) out of context by explaining this statement as code for something else, and offers his own interpretation: “I may decide to attack.” He uses Obama’s words against him by saying his vows, which usually denotes a solemnly promise to be upheld, do not match his actions, and are therefore, letting down the America people and the world. Furthermore, verb tenses used throughout the article imply bias, such as the following statement: “…the United Nations Watchdog will report this week that Tehran, in fact, is working to develop nuclear weapons for military use.” It seems the writer has the inside scoop on future political happenings and foresight into the inner workings of the Iranian government’s military policies. Words, indeed, do affect how the reader understand and relates the information given, especially since a majority of readers are outside the ‘know,’ and relying on news and media to deliver answers is dangerous at best. The author was quite vivid about his feelings towards the Obama Administration’s aggressively wonton use of force, and contrary to the ray of sunshine that he rode in on, but being able to decode this message and vocabulary words used to present the message, readers will be better able to decide for themselves ‘truth.”