Thanks to positioning bias one can assume that this story is quite important, the New York Times dedicated a front page segment to it. The title is very simple but gives off a hint of prejudice upon closer inspection, Despite concussions, boxing is still required for military cadets. “Still necessary” is another way of saying that boxing should no longer be necessary, but it's still a pretty impartial title in my opinion. A better alternative might be military boxing which causes concussions. The images are well shot from interesting bird's eye and frontal angles and provide the reader with excellent images but do not possess any bias of the writer's or cameraman's ideology. As for the titles, they simply used professional militaristic titles for every individual in the story, without revealing how they feel about other bias-related titles. Say no to plagiarism. Get a tailor-made essay on "Why Violent Video Games Shouldn't Be Banned"? Get an original essay The numbers described in the story show bias, it says the Air Force reported 72 concussions, but what it didn't say is how many total participants there are at the Air Force, it could be 100,000 and the number it would be insignificant or it could be 100 and 72 out of 100 were inflicted. What the piece also does is spread the information gathering by interviewing many different people. It shows both sides, as concussions are a necessity to prepare troops for ground combat and a potential long-lasting injury and pain for someone who may not benefit from boxing knowledge. I do not recognize any assumptions that the writer resorts to without adequate information. The writer writes for the New York Times, so his audience is huge, someone from almost every part of the world and every culture will read him, and there is nothing here that will offend anyone. The way people are portrayed in the story is also not offensive and is just based on facts. The writer does not cross any political lines, which might be difficult when writing about the military. The feeling I get from the piece is that it's just an unfortunate necessity of being in the military to prepare individuals for war. The story does a good job of remaining impartial.