Previous Troubling Reports

The article, beginning with the subtitle, "Sen. Warren's history of using violent rhetoric offers an illuminating insight into the worldview of many on the left", very clearly demonstrates its warped rhetoric in trying to ascribe one leftists opinion to the whole field of leftists. Reporting an opinion is one thing but stating it as a fact and exclaiming it so matter-of-factly is quite misleading especially when the "opinion" part of the article is small is easy to miss.

This article attempts to go over the lack of interference and 'interest' of President Biden and the Whitehouse in this past weeks looming government shutdown due to issues passing a spending bill. It talks about how Biden spent some of the week at his house in Delaware. IT then says that many believe that Biden's absence over this process is a political move to make Trump take much of the public blame for any negative outcome. The bias that I see happens at the end of the piece where the report throws in a paragraph referencing a WSJ report that revealed "...Biden’s staff noticed his diminishing stamina as far back as 2021 during the first few months of his presidency." The discussion of President Biden's mental stamina was not prevalent in the article nor was is relevant to the issue at hand. IT seemed like a bias jab at reminding the reader of an issue to be wary of Biden on.

While reporting on the horrific school shooting in Wisconsin the writer for this article makes a few claims that come across as unsavory to me. One of those things is discussing if the shooter was possibly transgender which had no backing what so ever. Which was compounded by one of the social media posts it has in the article by Mostly Peaceful Memes stating "Female or 'Female.'" The article also states that since the shooter is not a male or used an AR-15 that it will leave the news cycle quickly. There was no need for these types of comments on reporting about the terrible shooting as many things were unknown at the time and things would be learned over time as the police investigate. As well as trying to perpetuate unknown claims of the shooter being transgender as reports were stating that it was a bological female who commited the crime.

This article sheds light on President-elect Donald Trump’s rhetorical style, marked by sweeping promises and ambiguous caveats, raising concerns about the potential for misinformation. For example, Trump’s pledge to quickly reduce grocery prices and abruptly end overseas wars is presented without concrete policy details or actionable plans, leaving these claims open to skepticism. His assertion of an impending "Golden Age of America" similarly lacks substantiation, making it difficult to evaluate its validity. Additionally, statements such as "all hell’s going to break out" if hostages are not returned by his inauguration use dramatic language that amplifies public fears without providing clear strategies or solutions. Furthermore, expert commentary notes Trump’s tendency to reframe unfulfilled promises to maintain his base’s support, illustrating how political speech can evolve to sidestep accountability.

This article, while textually likely only somewhat conservative has a very consevative headline that doesn't quite match up its content. The article is claiming that liberals are cancelling their time magazine subscriptions because trump was named person of the year and provides tweets from users who posted online comments about doing so but there is no indication of a persons political party affiliation in any tweet. In reality, there are many conservatives and republicans that also dislike trump or would perhaps not be in agreement with Trumps new title as person of the year but the article makes no reference or gives no consideration to that.

This article raises concerns about Kash Patel's qualifications and potential impact as FBI Director, should he be confirmed. Some of the claims rely on speculation and loaded language that may lead to misinterpretation or bias. The author highlighting statements from Patel, such as describing the FBI as “an existential threat to our republican form of government,” raise doubts about his ability to lead the agency in a non-partisan and professional manner. Moreover, the article outlines potential risks associated with Patel's leadership, including the weaponization of the FBI to target political opponents, a possibility bolstered by his close alignment with former President Donald Trump’s agenda. Drawing parallels to abuses under J. Edgar Hoover’s tenure, the author notes that while modern internal safeguards, such as the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), provide some protection, they could be undermined by a politically motivated director.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

This opinion article on Fox News is discussing that Trump will rebuild the US economy and that democrats and Biden deserve none of the credit for that ecnomy when he becomes President again. This article is biased towards Trump and how he has and will handle the economy. The article is also very bias against democrats and the Biden administration along with anything that Biden and democrats tried to do against COVID-19 and the high inflation. Also, the data that showed that Obama had a good economy when he left office which Trump inheritied; however, the article states that the data is not true and Trump's actions made the ecnomy better. While there can be a difference of opinion on what will make and break an economy the obvious distain for democrats though is palpable through the article.