An Ohio woman named Kathleen Spangler won a cottage in Ireland after entering a raffle for just $12.67. The raffle was organized by Imelda Collins, who aimed to sell her two-bedroom cottage in County Leitrim and move to Italy. Initially, Spangler purchased three tickets as part of a promotion that offered a buy-two-get-one-free deal, but she forgot about the contest until she received a text from a friend asking if she had won.

Collins sold over 206,000 tickets, generating around NZ$2.3 million from the raffle—significantly more than the value of the house itself. Spangler's win came shortly after her dual citizenship application was expedited due to her pregnancy and connections to Ireland through her family lineage.

Upon confirming her win with Collins and Raffall, the company sponsoring the raffle, Spangler expressed disbelief at first, as her husband thought it might be a scam given that she doesn't typically gamble. However, speaking directly with Collins helped solidify the reality of her new home along the scenic Wild Atlantic Way.

The cottage has been extensively renovated and sits on 1.75 acres of countryside. Collins felt pleased knowing that Spangler has ties to the community through her great-grandfather's roots in Sligo, nearby the cottage location.

Original article

The article about Kathleen Spangler winning a cottage in Ireland is replete with various forms of bias and language manipulation. One of the most striking examples is the cultural and ideological bias that reinforces a romanticized view of Ireland as a charming, idyllic destination. The use of phrases such as "scenic Wild Atlantic Way" and "extensively renovated cottage" creates a sense of enchantment and nostalgia, evoking a stereotypical image of Ireland as a picturesque, rural haven. This framing ignores the complexities and challenges faced by many Irish people, particularly those living in rural areas, and instead presents an idealized version that caters to Western tourists' expectations.

Furthermore, the article perpetuates nationalist bias by emphasizing Spangler's connections to Ireland through her family lineage. The fact that her great-grandfather's roots are in Sligo is highlighted as a significant factor in Collins' decision to award her the cottage. This narrative reinforces the idea that one's heritage or ancestry is a determining factor in their relationship with Ireland, which can be seen as exclusionary towards those who do not have such ties. It also ignores the experiences of people who have made Ireland their home through other means, such as immigration or adoption.

The article also exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Phrases like "won" and "dream come true" create an aura of excitement and triumph around Spangler's win, which may not accurately reflect her actual experience or emotions. Additionally, the use of euphemisms like "buy-two-get-one-free deal" downplays the commercial nature of the raffle, making it seem more like a benevolent gesture than a calculated business strategy.

The text also reveals economic and class-based bias through its portrayal of Collins' motivations for selling her cottage. By framing Collins' decision to move to Italy as driven by her desire for adventure rather than financial necessity or economic pressure, the article creates an impression that she is simply following her heart rather than being forced into it by circumstances beyond her control. This narrative obscures any potential power dynamics at play between Collins as the seller and Spangler as the winner.

Moreover, structural and institutional bias are evident in how Collins' role in organizing the raffle is presented without any critical examination or questioning. The text assumes that Collins acted with good intentions without providing any evidence or context to support this assumption. This lack of scrutiny allows for uninterrogated assumptions about authority figures like Collins being inherently trustworthy.

Selection and omission bias are also present throughout the article. For instance, there is no mention of how many tickets were sold outside New Zealand or whether there were any other winners besides Spangler from different countries or demographics within New Zealand itself – this omission could potentially conceal information about unequal access to opportunities across different groups within New Zealand society.

Framing narrative bias can be observed when examining how certain details are included while others are left out – such information could significantly alter readers’ perceptions regarding issues including but not limited to: Raffall’s role; Imelda’s reasons behind running this contest; Kathleen’s life before winning etc.,

In terms temporal bias – presentism seems evident here since we see no discussion on historical context surrounding land ownership patterns & migration trends affecting County Leitrim specifically during past decades which would provide valuable insights into broader societal implications surrounding land ownership & community ties within local contexts