Is this article biased?

[Linda]

Is this article, "Why the Revolution will not be tweeted" biased? i am having trouble finding the strengths and weaknesses of the article.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/...ntPage=all


Any help is appreciated!

Thanks!

[Mr. Smartypants]

I wouldn't say it was biased. It doesn't use 'brightly colored words' words with strong connotations--for instance it didn't call protesters 'terrorists' or 'radicals' or 'subversives' or 'traitors'. All the cited and quoted material was properly attributed, so that readers could consider the sources. And it dealt with similar protests around the world, so anyone reading would see some they were for and some they were against. It wasn't commenting on the rightness or wrongness of the protests, just on how protests work, and what credit is due (or not) to social media.

I think the strength of the article is that it is well-researched and pulls together information from various events to show ways they are similar. I think it's also very well-written and well-thought-out. The weakness is that all the information given supports the author's opinion or position, that social media are given too much credit and that these protests would happen with or without it. BUT this is why people read these articles, and the author's conclusion is telegraphed in the opening paragraphs, so it's not like he's pretending to be completely neutral.