In other words, this is exposing a long standing flaw in journalism. I know things are super polarized now, but even 20 years ago, when mentioning a Congressperson regarding a particular social problem, they would specify if he was a Democrat/Republican.

I really don't need to know which party he is part of. If the article was about a party's stance, it makes sense - but the article is about one politician.

Sure you do, to understand actual patterns in actions of members of the party.

And ignoring that, it’s general context. Part of the job of a journalist.

> to understand actual patterns in actions of members of the party.

Or to construct patterns that don't reflect reality.

Should we also list their ages, ethnicity, religious affiliation(s) in each article mentioning a Congressperson and construct those patterns as well?

Sorry, I'd like to think on my own.

When every vote on a bill lands along party lines you might want to begin to suspect that party affiliation matters quite a bit.

> I know things are super polarized now, but even 20 years ago, when mentioning a Congressperson regarding a particular social problem, they would specify if he was a Democrat/Republican.

When articles always mention party affiliation, people will judge the politician's behavior based on the affiliation, and not on his actions.