While I appreciate what you are trying to do, I don’t think such a simple analysis as you provide is really evidence of the bias you claim. If there are more mentions of Putin it is partly because he is doing more bad things. It would be nice if Zelensky was mentioned as often for good things as Putin was mentioned for bad things but that’s not realistic in the media. A real attempt to discover bias would need to count each mention for “good” and “bad” and then count up. Also it depends which media you are counting in.
I literally addressed the fact that I didn't differentiate between good and bad news, and that Putin's cult of personality contributes, somewhat, to the discrepancy. That said, any coverage of Putin should include equivalent time to writing about President Zelenskyy.
While I appreciate what you are trying to do, I don’t think such a simple analysis as you provide is really evidence of the bias you claim. If there are more mentions of Putin it is partly because he is doing more bad things. It would be nice if Zelensky was mentioned as often for good things as Putin was mentioned for bad things but that’s not realistic in the media. A real attempt to discover bias would need to count each mention for “good” and “bad” and then count up. Also it depends which media you are counting in.
I literally addressed the fact that I didn't differentiate between good and bad news, and that Putin's cult of personality contributes, somewhat, to the discrepancy. That said, any coverage of Putin should include equivalent time to writing about President Zelenskyy.
Thank you for this very insightful article. I love your honest coverage of the conflict.
I'm honored by your words.