Reading these seem pretty straightforward and fair, if the ghouls online look bad in them it's because they're acting like ghouls. Lookalike contests glorifying a murderer? Yeah, kind of scummy. Maybe you could say "health insurance employees afraid" is an odd framing on the last article, but then again the celebration and threats are in part intended to make them afraid so reporting on the end results seems fair as well. When you say bias do you mean the tone of the articles isn't explicitly that the executive got what he deserved? There are other places like Rolling Stone where you can get something like that.
You're literally linking to stories that put more focus on direct reactions to the killing and less on the criticisms of the systemic issues, so how do you even think this is evidence against the claim that they're trying to take attention away from the criticisms?
United Healthcare is the worst in an industry whose very existence is a product of a broken system.
Its CEO is responsible for numerous deaths even if you only count the claims they denied that other insurance companies would have approved.
His killer was someone whose claim had been denied; his motive was anger at things that United was indisputably guilty of.
Those are the facts that should be at the forefront.
Focusing on the strongest reactions, pretending to not know the motive, and generally treating this particular killing as somehow
worse than random murders (that barely get a mention) are all ways of talking about the incident that take attention away from the fact that it happened
because of very real things being actually wrong.
And the NYT also ran that utter abomination of an article trying to claim the asshole victim should be viewed as the real hero, so hug them. (Not that they hadn't already lost credibility years ago, but this might just be
the dumbest thing I've seen from them.)
