Write an article based on this summary:

Read the whole article carefully. Look at the headline. Ask yourself if the article helps or hurts anyone. Figure out who's reading the article. Look for exaggerated or colorful language. Identify the reporter's tone to see how they feel about the topic. Check out the images to look for bias. Make a list of the sources in the article. Examine the statistics and studies cited in the article.
Reading every single word in a newspaper article can be super time consuming, but it's worth it when you're trying to find bias in the reporting. Biases can be really subtle and hard to catch, so pay careful attention to the entire article. Set aside time each day to tackle one article at a time. This will help you practice the kind of skills you need to recognize bias, and you'll go faster each time. Start by giving yourself about a half hour for an article that's a few pages long. Some people only read headlines, so they're designed to communicate a clear point as quickly as possible. This means that using just a few words, most headlines make an argument. Evaluate each word to check whether they describe something positively or negatively. Ask yourself why the headline might not be totally neutral. For example, the headline "Hundreds Attend Peaceful Protest" tells a different story than "Angry Riot Confronts Police." Look at the words used to describe the people, political issues, and events mentioned in the article. If the language makes them sound good or bad, rather than just neutral, the reporter may be trying to influence you to favor one side over another. After you're finished reading, take a minute to think about how you feel about the issue the article covered. Do you suddenly want to support a particular politician or fall on one side of political debate? If so, you'll need to think about whether the article convinced you with facts or slanted language. Think about who typically reads this kind of article. Reporters might want to write stories that their readers will appreciate, which could lead to biased reporting. Try running a Google search to look for descriptions of the typical age, gender, racial background, income, and political leanings for the audiences of several newspapers and media outlets. Enter something like "demographics of New York Times readers" into the Google search bar. You may find information that's a few years out of date, but your search should still give you a broad idea of who reads the paper. Understanding newspapers' usual demographics can help you think about what various groups of people care about. Younger readers might have strong feelings about education, since they're still students. Older readers might want content about taxes and retirement. Consider whether the words the reporter uses in the article are informational or emotional. Watch out any time that a word or description makes you feel a strong emotion. If overly descriptive words are used to represent a particular group of people or side of a debate, this could be an especially big red flag. For example, an informational description of a politician could look like this: "Senator Smith is originally from Connecticut and is thirty years old." Check out how this description makes the same content emotional: "Senator Smith comes from a rich town in Connecticut and is just barely out of her twenties." Look for words that reveal the reporter's double standards. For example, one person might be described as "passionate and inspired" while another might be described as "stubborn and rash," even if both people are showing dedication to a particular cause. Take note of any language that gives you a positive or negative feeling about information. If this emotion is coming from the way the reporter is writing the story, ask yourself why the reporter feels this way. They may be sad or happy about a particular event, or angry at someone. Focus on how the tone of the article changes the way you read the information rather than associating the intent directly to the reporter. The best way to monitor your own emotions is to think about whether it's the topic that's making you feel something, or the way the article is written. Maybe the article is about a new amusement park opening in your town. This could be great news, and you may just be pumped about it. But if the article is about something you wouldn't normally feel strongly about, and you do, ask yourself why. Photographs, cartoons, and other images tell stories just like words. Look for the main subject in the image and think about how this person or thing looks. Take note of any shadows or colors that make the subject appear scary or triumphant. Consider how the picture makes you feel, especially if you're suddenly feeling sympathetic toward a particular group of people or side of a political debate. Determine how the reporter made their point. Look at every person who's quoted, and check which company or organization they represent. Consider whether one type of organization gets more coverage in the article than others. Maybe the article is about a military conflict in a different country. Did the reporter quote from a balanced list of all the different people involved in the conflict? This list would probably include military officers and leaders, diplomats, politicians, and, most importantly, people from the actual country where the conflict is located. If the article only quotes, say, military personnel, read carefully to try and understand why that is. It's hard to argue with numbers, which is why they're included in so much reporting. Don't let statistics intimidate you, even if you're not a math person. You can still evaluate how the reporter used these numbers. Determine the connection between the stats and the author's main point, and check to see if the stats make sense. Is the data cited in the article, or only the conclusions of the study? Did the author give you access to the full study? Did the author skim over the statistics without much detail and then make a strongly worded conclusion based on evidence they didn't really give you? If the article is only citing a small amount of information or data, ask yourself why that is. There may be other information in the study that the reporter decided to leave out.