In Thomas’ Burn, Gilboa, Burn, the author’s sense of bias quickly becomes apparent within the first few paragraphs. His anecdotal account of how Gilboa, “a Goliath amid a sea of Davids,” was condemned to flames paints his blatant disapproval of the burning, asserting his belief that “the impact on individual lives was incalculable” and supporting such by quoting equally opinion-pumped articles (“there is a note of sadness in the business transactions occurring at Gilboa…the separation and scattering of the big family of village residents, people who for long years have lived together, means a whole lot, for sentiment and friendship are more than commonplace terms…”; this quote in particular, like many others, is meant to tug at a reader’s conscience and ultimately generate sympathy for those so harshly affected by the hamlet’s destruction). Thomas facts are therefore somewhat unreliable, as they are presented in an overly biased sense. He fails to provide equal representation of all sides of the story, focusing solely on one blinding aspect that has him emotionally charged. Although the numbers mentioned in his piece may be accurate, the way they are integrated into and presented in the article are completely biased, as they are not only meant to inform readers, but persuade them to perceive the Gilboa burning event through the same lens as Thomas, who poignantly asserts that the completion of the dam ultimately signaled the “final destruction” of Gilboa. He laments his mammoth disapproval of the Schoharie Reservoir’s birth being rooted in the death of a well-established and close-knit community in his final paragraph, making New York appear monstrous by taking advantage of its surrounding small towns: “As for New York City, the dam was filled, new trees were planted on the hillsides, and Gilboa was nothing more than another supply of water.”

Ascher’s presentation of NYC’s water system therefore seems more accurate, not because it is purely objective, but because it demonstrates a less biased picture overall. The manner in which she relays her data is much more factual, and way less anecdotal and conjectural. Her tenor is far from Thomas’ critical and solemn tone; it incorporates some degree of subjectivity, however still manages to tame her own opinion and insert it using a much more subtle approach. Ascher’s discussion of the creation of the reservoirs, for example, is not nearly as fervent and one-sided as Thomas’. She acknowledges the fact that the process entailed “the partial flooding of some 30 separate communities” and that “over 9,000 people were displaced in the process,” however does not really elaborate beyond such facts. You can still pick up on Ascher’s bias, however, by reviewing her choice of words: she uses less harsh vocabulary in describing the overall incident, selecting less poignant adjectives (she expresses that the communities affected were only partially flooded and that people were simply displaced—not rendered tragically homeless, as dramatically implied by Thomas’ article). This therefore reveals her bias, which favors anything beneficial towards New York (even if it means the decimation of a few thousand homes).