Political parties are meant to represent, to lobby, and to ultimately bring people of similar views together. In recent years, political affiliation has become more of a competitive farce instead of effectively having representatives for the formation of laws for their interests. In the United States of America, there are two main political parties: the conservative Republicans and the liberal Democrats. Thomas Kaplan and Jim Tankersley’s article “Senate Plans to End Obamacare Mandate in Revised Tax Proposal” published by the New York Times aims to inform their readers about the senate’s plans for what what course of action should be taken in regards to the Affordable Care Act and the effects that will come with it. The article could, however, engender different interpretations from different people, namely those in either political parties. A conservative could be ecstatic about the prospective repealment of the Affordable Care Act while a liberal could be deeply saddened or outraged. The information used could make an impact on the readers. Just from the title, “Senate Plans to End Obamacare Mandate in Revised Tax Proposal,” conservatives could be already be excited. Being the group that greatly values reaping what they sow, conservatives would be happier with the repeal as it is “a longstanding Republican goal and would save hundreds of billions of dollars over the next decade. That would free up money that is earmarked to expand middle-class tax cuts.” With little information or speculation to nitpick, how a conservative would feel while reading the article would be completely different. With the same parts that conservatives are unhappy with, liberals will have a different perception. Being more emotionally driven, the title would infuriate liberal readers as this is not what they would believe should happen. A liberal would think that all that is being said in the article as fact and will even cherrypick information that is unfavorable to their side. So instead of focusing on the information, a liberal would tend to look at the criticism of the conservatives. As they continue reading the article the Democratic readers will want to believe that the writer’s criticism of the conservatives is objective and unbiased and will take this information as being true. When the article states that, “A repeal is the exact opposite of what we should be doing,” many liberal readers will believe that there are more people on their side and that it is the the correct side to be on. An important thing to consider is just how deep the cultural divide between Republicans and Democrats are. Instead of always focusing on what the policies aim to do, many will start to focus on who passed the law and will immediately contest it. Especially with how mass media (mainstream and social) influences how people think, feelings and perceptions of the opposing side are more amplified than ever. Since “recent findings showed that users on Facebook tend to select information that adhere to their system of beliefs,” a huge portion of the world’s population are not exposed to different forms of thinking and will instead only become more one-sided in their beliefs. The article was also published by the New York Times: a news agency whose audience, according to the Pew Research Center, tends to be more liberal. Of course, this means that the content that is produced is targeted towards a certain demographic with less regard to anyone outside of that group. From the liberal’s perspective, there is nothing that seems out of place. To a conservative reader, however, there is a lot of bias that is evident. This perspective that the writer takes may also affect how the reader feels about the piece. While conservatives could initially feel happy about reading the title, they can also see that by using the word”end” connotatively gives the title a more ominous feel. This could annoy them as the news that they wanted to read for facts is not actually as objective as it is initially made out to be and evolves into a piece that warns the readers as to what would happen if the repeal were to actually happen. This also happens when the writers talk about the how “The mandate repeal would save more than $300 billion over a decade” but then immediately try to undercut the benefits of a repeal by appealing to emotions by saying it would “result in 13 million fewer Americans being covered by health insurance.” This could infuriate someone that agrees with the what the senate is doing but also sees that the authors are attempting to sway the readers to one side of the story, especially not the one that they are a part of. The article by the New York Times aiming at informing the public can be interpreted differently. Liberals may feel as though this was a wonderful piece that properly informs people about the dangers of the republican plan to repeal Obamacare, while conservatives may feel that the piece is biased and could be infuriated by it. Depending on the way one was raised and which personal values are held dear, one may have different ideas, perspectives, and feelings about the article, especially when mainly written for a specific audience.