Previous Troubling Reports

This article by the Department of Homeland Security was one of the most troubling I came across during my research for an assignment concerning ICE. This article clearly speaks with a partisan bias and selectively uses poll data to support its stance on immigration. While it is true that the majority of America, according to these polls, supports the deportation of criminal illegal immigrants, the majority of America also believes that ICE has gone too far with current mass deportations, a statistic provided in the same study that they cite. The author cherry-picked certain statistics that sounded most favorable to the administration's policy stance and called any criticism of the recent deportations "leftist smears." This behavior from an unreliable journalist would have been more understandable, at least, but an article of this nature on the dhs.gov website is irresponsible and provokes the partisan divide.

It emphasizes the stock drop as “knocked down by the revived U.S. trade war.” This implies a single main cause affecting the stock drop which came from multiple factors. It simplifies a complex economic situation and spread misleading information.

This source is certainly politically biased, making it not reliable, objective reporting. The article discusses Pope Leo's urging of the bishops in the United States to take a firm stance against Trump and ICE's treatment and deportation of migrants out of the US. The article describes the recent actions as "the cruelty of the Trump administration’s deportation policy." The quote demonstrates a strong liberal bias from the author, which is common for MSNBC as a whole. Overall, the clear bias in this article makes it not reliable and therefore troubling news.

This Breitbart article attributes the ongoing government shutdown to Democratic leader Chuck Schumer. And while there are certainly partisan divides as to who is responsible for the shutdown, it is an objective fact that a plurality of Americans blame Republicans, not Schumer, for the lapse in pay.

This article talks about Trump's claims that the federal government may deny back pay to some employees furloughed amid the government shutdown. He is spreading misinformation as there is a law that guarantees back pay for employees furloughed or required to work unpaid during government shutdowns. Unless he is going to break that law, there is no way for him to guarantee that some employees will be denied back pay.

This article talks about Trump's claims that the federal government may deny back pay to some employees furloughed amid the government shutdown. He is spreading misinformation as there is a law that guarantees back pay for employees furloughed or required to work unpaid during government shutdowns. Unless he is going to break that law, there is no way for him to guarantee that some employees will be denied back pay.

Breitbart is a far right news company and it shows in this article. Using somewhat truthful news and exaggerating it to push a meassage. The section that talks about how H-1B visas allowing for unlimited immigrations is unfair to what is actually happening.

I did not see anything entirely misinformative within this article, but it has the prevalent left-wing bias seen frequently in MSNBC's writing. It is highlighted as an opinion article, but it is also seen directly n MSNBC's front page where it is easy to miss that the article is an opinionated one. Reporter Ayman Mohyeldin's opinion is clearly seen throughout much of the article, and he uses highly inflammatory language to further push his point. Examples can be seen here "It must be framed about refusing to fund authoritarianism" and here "As Trump is wreaking havoc on American democracy, appropriations become blank checks for Trump’s authoritarian overreach", as two quotes that use the inflammatory language described above. The bias is very heavy in his article, and I feel that that could have the audience leave it with a skewed perception of the shutdown.

This article is troubling because it uses the author's personal experience as a civilian professor as supporting evidence for his prediction about why the military fist of the United States will soon fall on its own citizens. As a voter, I find myself agreeing with his overall points. Still, regardless of my opinions, the article paints a dark picture of the relationship between the military branch and the President. There was press coverage concerning Trump's speech at Fort Bragg earlier this year that described the military response as celebratory, although there was obvious and evergreen criticism. More troubling than any exaggerations, the portrayed hypothetical scenario of military leaders being easily twisted by the President, like in Maduro's Venezuela, is hard to believe.

I found this troubling because it assumes all Democrats are okay with political violence. The article mentions some Democrats who did disagree and condemn what was said, yet brush these condemnations off to suit the narrative that all Democrats are violent.

The article doesn't have any valid sources. The sources are all other conservative media that allege everything discussed in this article. The author writes as if everything is fact, when it is yet to be proven. Additionally, some of their pieces of evidence have no links or citations. There is little to no evidence to back up what the author is stating.

I had high hopes when I opened up the article, as I expected it to talk about views from both sides of the aisle. However, this article is heavily framed against President Trump, as it talks about how this meeting was supposed to be a celebration for the Navy's 250th anniversary, but was used to continue politicizing the military.