Previous Troubling Reports

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures in general. A lot of the statements make Obama look like he is mocking or insulting the republican party; it does not address the full context of his statements. It references George Will's comment of Obama as "pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of his rhetoric. It also accuses Michelle without clear evidence.

This article has an incredible conservative bias from the title alone and takes the entire article to make fun and negatively comment on the Democratic Party and the DNC. It is extremely biased and paints only a bad picture of the DNC using endless attacks and not taking them seriously.

The reasons why this is troubling all touch on the typical issues with opinion pieces; they're susceptible to ad hominem attacks and seem more focused on attacking the person and not the policy- "(Harris) did not try to ameliorate her voice's nasal quality" and comparing her to an "HR Administrator". While perhaps accurate or amusing, one would only make this comparison if one was sure their audience believed it to be true. Nothing about this piece seems addressed to a neutral audience or like it's making much of a case for anything in particular- Kamala Harris sounds like a schoolmarm, you think she sounds like the worst teacher you had growing up, so she must be- and not to inform or persuade.

The article is written by CNN as it is to no surprise that they were seemingly against Trump. What I mean by that is the article's title states that experts say it wouldn't help many workers, and although that may or may not be true, it does not change that the fact that he is right. Not one time during the article did they mention that Donald Trump came up with the idea and realizing that he was right, the authors instead pivot to "experts" who disagree with the fundamental principle of letting hard working Americans keep more of their income. It is dishonest and shows their bias to not let him have a win. And as someone who personally finds both candidates to be terrible, I think that them not at least admitting that he was first is pathetic. Moreover, it shows the deepening partisan divide in this country where the truth no longer matters, just whether the opposition is looking bad and you are looking good.

This article's title contains a conservative bias, it implies that Kamala Harris has been avoiding or declining interviews since she joined the presidential race. The article provides no evidence that she has specifically avoided interviews and inserts additional bias by claiming that Harris will not participate because "of struggling in sit-down interviews". The author referenced one quote from a random press encounter as evidence, which is not directly related to the issue. This article displays an overall bias and may misinform readers.

For me, this is an example of using immature language and forcing clear political bias to exaggerate the Ethos of a politician. The way the article attempts to paint Obama and the Democratic party is unprofessional and based solely on biased cherry pickings rather than informed examples of what the article is claiming. Another example of what is more an attack rather than a need to inform.

This article from Salon goes over how there's apparently a conspiratorial right-wing plot to overturn American democracy that supposedly stretches back decades. The bias is blatantly apparent and doesn't require further discussion. What does the require discussion is that an article like this can also be potentially damaging to democracy, as it can erode trust in elected officials and institutions. People won't trust the democratic process if they think it's been corrupted by some hard-right conspiracy. Ironically, this article sounds similar to hard-right conspiracy theories of a supposed left-wing "deep state" ruling the country.

This is troubling for me because it lessens the word communist. Communists are people who round up political dissidents, suppress democratic values, and make the citizenry beholden to the state. Wage and price controls have already been used in the United States. That was last under Richard Nixon, and he certainly was no communist. To say that Kamala is a communist due to this policy demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the word.

This is troubling for me because it lessens the word communist. Communists are people who round up political dissidents, suppress democratic values, and make the citizenry beholden to the state. Wage and price controls have already been used in the United States. That was last under Richard Nixon, and he certainly was no communist. To say that Kamala is a communist due to this policy demonstrates a basic misunderstanding of the word.