Previous Troubling Reports

The title says significant increase, but a quick google search to the national polling average finds that Kamala is still only slightly ahead. Significant increase is misleading and although the author says the VP is at 48 and Trump is 44.4, the polls, like I said before, suggest nothing major has changed. To be clear, I think both of these options are embarrassing for the United States but nevertheless, it is clear that The Guardian has an implicit bias and it's editors want Kamala to win.

This article is very disingenuous and only is meant to mislead Americans. CNN is trying prop up the Biden administration and more specifically, VP Harris by making it seem that she cares more about the border. What I find to be problematic is if she cares so much, why not ask her boss to close the border? She is the Vice President of the United States of America not a random person, her boss has it in his authority to unilaterally declare a state of emergency and shut down the border. But they won't, why is that I wonder?

This article is very disingenuous and only is meant to mislead Americans. CNN is trying prop up the Biden administration and more specifically, VP Harris by making it seem that she cares more about the border. What I find to be problematic is if she cares so much, why not ask her boss to close the border? She is the Vice President of the United States of America not a random person, her boss has it in his authority to unilaterally declare a state of emergency and shut down the border. But they won't, why is that I wonder?

This article has misinformation and a noticeable bias. It portrays Trump and Republicans in a mostly negative light. It also uses loaded language, and speculates on negative outcomes related to their actions. At the same time, it largely omits potential lawsuits from the Democratic side. This shows that it has a lack of balance in the overall narrative.

This article has misinformation and a noticeable bias. It portrays Trump and Republicans in a mostly negative light. It also uses loaded language, and speculates on negative outcomes related to their actions. At the same time, it largely omits potential lawsuits from the Democratic side. This shows that it has a lack of balance in the overall narrative.

The article contends that monopolies forming specifically to eliminate competition and raise prices is unfounded, ironically without sourcing that claim at all. It's a well-researched effect of unchecked capitalism that companies will collaborate or be bought out expressly to raise prices for the consumer.

This news seems to be trying to do a "gotcha" moment with the title; that the CNN interview shows that children do not like Kamala Harris. However, the article shows that childern from historically blue and red states had negative feelings on the candidate from the opposing party. The title is very misleading to the audiance for the report which shows a bias in the titling since it does not show what the childern were saying about Donald Trump which was also negative.

This article isn’t necessarily misinformation, but it leaves a lot of things pretty vague. Apparently there was some sort of insider information that revealed that Iran had made assassination threats against Trump shortly after the first attempt on his life in Pennsylvania, and that these threats are being taken very seriously by the secret service. There is no specific information about the details of these threats or what exactly Iran has said, though, which is understandable given the delicate nature of the content. However, most of the information remains relatively vague and there isn’t a lot to go on in terms of forming an opinion.

This article is troubling for me because it's only points of contention are to antagonize Vice President Kamala Harris and try to paint her as evil. However, the only points of view the article addresses are Harris' problematic way of speaking and her changing opinions on certain factors. The article also has a one sided perspective of accusations made against Trump without really doing more research other than basic words he used. After all, actions speak louder than words. The writer also mentions she feels Mrs. Harris' policies are bad and wrong, but never addresses any and why she disagrees, once again painting a one sided picture with the intention of misleading viewers.

The reason this post is disturbing is that Dana Bash is pushing a story that is a lie and was fact-checked by other reporters when it came to the situation regarding Rashida Talib. Talib Herself has said that Nessel did not charge pro-Palestinian protestors over religion.

This title is troubling since it brings a more serious undertone than the reality. It suggests that VP Harris and Trump are literally targeting civil society. The uneducated may at first glance, think this to mean authoritarian measures however upon reading the article, the intro claims both side want to raise taxes. That may be true for VP Harris but former President Trump has made it very clear he has no such intention and instead would give more tax breaks to the wealthy. Furthermore, they make mention a claim that both sides want to tax non-profits but fail to make that the point of discussion in the title. I would argue when people think of civil society, they do not think of non-profits.

The title itself is already misleading. At first glance, the article makes it sound that the Japanese fired at Russian jets with actually weapons. This is not true, the Japanese responded by firing warning flares, not missiles or bullets. The article even says as much in its first line, "Russian aircrafts were intercepted by Japanese fighter jets firing warning flares." Further casting the article's reliability into doubt is that all of the linked sources in it appear to be from other pieces by the Irish Star rather than another news agency or outside source. For context, the Irish Star is owned by Reach pls who also own the British Daily Star. Both are known to cover stories in a more sensationalized manner rather than wholly truthful. With all of this in mind, the article seems to be trying to gain circulation and views by playing into anxieties over a global war. People are already on edge as it is and adding to it does not help the situation.