Which part specifically is biased, and what bias is that?
If you’ve emerged from a gleaming modern metro station only to find yourself in a vast wasteland, it’s probably down to one of two scenarios.
Either you’ve time warped to a post-apocalyptic future, or you’re at Caojiawan Station near the city of Chongqing in China.
Opened in October 2015 to connect the rural suburb of Caijiagang with the city center, Caojiawan Station has become legendary throughout China because of its bizarre appearance in the middle of nowhere.
The station’s three exits – only one of them is in use now – are all hidden among overgrown weeds on barren land.
As photos taken earlier this year show, there are no residential buildings, paved roads, shops or other public transportation in sight. And very few commuters.
That’s still the case today.
A station worker recently told Chongqing Morning Post: “Very few passengers get off at this station. Most of the time, there will be no passenger boarding or alighting here.”
Despite its seemingly outlandish location, Caojiawan Station’s location is part of an insightful plan that anticipates growth in rapidly modernizing China – so say Chongqing Rail Transit employees.
“Caojiawan Station may not be in the most popular area for now,” one worker told Chinese media company Manner Video, a Chinese digital video production company. “But with the development of the rail route, it’s possible that it’ll attract more people to the area and help hasten urban development along the line.”
It’s not the first time Chongqing’s mass transit system has set the internet ablaze.
Earlier this year, a video showing a light rail passenger train passing through a 19-story apartment building – where there is a transit stop on the sixth and seventh floor of the building – went viral.
The city’s newly built Huangjuewan Flyover also caught netizens’ attention thanks to its crazily dense tangle of roadways.
Connecting roads in eight directions on five levels with more than 20 ramps, Huangjuewan Flyover is the largest and most complicated hub interchange in country’s southwest area.
The bias in this article is pretty obvious once you start looking for it. For starters, the author frames the whole thing like “look at this ridiculous useless station in the middle of nowhere” and then buries the actual explanation at the end with a major side eye.
As I’ve already explained, the biggest tell is the phrase “so say Chongqing Rail Transit employees.” By adding “so say” instead of just saying “Chongqing Rail Transit employees explained” or “according to” the author makes it sound like the workers are making excuses or spinning a story. It creates this vibe of “yeah that’s what they want you to believe” without actually saying anything false. It’s a classic subtle way to plant doubt.
Another one is “despite its seemingly outlandish location”. The word “seemingly” does a lot of heavy lifting here. It lets the author call the location outlandish while technically covering themselves with the “seemingly” qualifier. But the reader walks away thinking how outlandish this all is.
And then there is “it’s possible that it’ll attract more people” which is a direct quote from the employee. The author chose to include the most hedged and uncertain phrasing possible. The employee probably said something more confident about the planned development, but the article picks the one sentence that sounds like a maybe and uses it as the closing argument. The employees look like they are grasping at straws.
The article also uses the phrase “a Chinese digital video production company” right after the Manner Video name. That seems neutral on its face but actually reminds the reader “this is a Chinese source so take it with a grain of salt”. Compare that to how they describe the original complaint “a station worker recently told Chongqing Morning Post” which is presented as pure fact without any disclaimer whatsoever.
Meanwhile the description of the flyover uses “crazily dense tangle of roadways” which is pure editorial. That is not a factual description. That is the author telling you how to feel about it.
So yeah the article rather hamfistedly sets up a “can you believe this absurd station” tone, quotes the actual explanation as a weak maybe, and uses loaded framing like “so say” to make the reasonable answer sound like corporate puffery. The bias is in how they frame the whole thing.
If you think that’s what journalistic neutrality looks like I really don’t know what else to tell you here.
What part of the headline or article is not neutral? It doesn’t disparage the existence of the station at all.
None of it is neutral, and the bias is incredibly obvious to anybody reading it objectively.
Which part specifically is biased, and what bias is that?
The bias in this article is pretty obvious once you start looking for it. For starters, the author frames the whole thing like “look at this ridiculous useless station in the middle of nowhere” and then buries the actual explanation at the end with a major side eye.
As I’ve already explained, the biggest tell is the phrase “so say Chongqing Rail Transit employees.” By adding “so say” instead of just saying “Chongqing Rail Transit employees explained” or “according to” the author makes it sound like the workers are making excuses or spinning a story. It creates this vibe of “yeah that’s what they want you to believe” without actually saying anything false. It’s a classic subtle way to plant doubt.
Another one is “despite its seemingly outlandish location”. The word “seemingly” does a lot of heavy lifting here. It lets the author call the location outlandish while technically covering themselves with the “seemingly” qualifier. But the reader walks away thinking how outlandish this all is.
And then there is “it’s possible that it’ll attract more people” which is a direct quote from the employee. The author chose to include the most hedged and uncertain phrasing possible. The employee probably said something more confident about the planned development, but the article picks the one sentence that sounds like a maybe and uses it as the closing argument. The employees look like they are grasping at straws.
The article also uses the phrase “a Chinese digital video production company” right after the Manner Video name. That seems neutral on its face but actually reminds the reader “this is a Chinese source so take it with a grain of salt”. Compare that to how they describe the original complaint “a station worker recently told Chongqing Morning Post” which is presented as pure fact without any disclaimer whatsoever.
Meanwhile the description of the flyover uses “crazily dense tangle of roadways” which is pure editorial. That is not a factual description. That is the author telling you how to feel about it.
So yeah the article rather hamfistedly sets up a “can you believe this absurd station” tone, quotes the actual explanation as a weak maybe, and uses loaded framing like “so say” to make the reasonable answer sound like corporate puffery. The bias is in how they frame the whole thing.