Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This article takes a figure from a recent NPR poll to extrapolate that there could be as many as 104 million domestic terrorists in the United States. Then, it goes further in claiming that it only takes one "radical anarchist" to engage in terrorism at the behest of "Democrats' anti-Trump, anti-ICE rhetoric." As a reminder, the vast majority of politically motivated deaths in this country are right-wing individuals. This is important to keep in mind even though political violence of any kind is unacceptable.

The author compares a female, Democratic electoral candidate to Willie Horton as a way to frame her as enabling dangerous crime. Willie Horton, for reference, is a convicted violent offender and Tier III registered sex offender. This is an exaggerated and misleading portrayal of the candidate's actual positions on crime and public safety. Instead of focusing on evidence, policy, or voting record, the author relies on emotionally charged imagery that recalls a historically biased political attack to convey the article's message. This type of framing reflects partisan bias because it substitutes fear-based associations for reasonable debate and factual analysis. Due to this partisan framing, the article may spread misinformation by shaping public perception through rhetoric rather than facts--which can lead to misinformed opinions and decisions. This article is an example of medium to very right bias.

The author compares a female, Democratic electoral candidate to Willie Horton as a way to frame her as enabling dangerous crime. Willie Horton, for reference, is a convicted violent offender and Tier III registered sex offender. This is an exaggerated and misleading portrayal of the candidate's actual positions on crime and public safety. Instead of focusing on evidence, policy, or voting record, the author relies on emotionally charged imagery that recalls a historically biased political attack to convey the article's message. This type of framing reflects partisan bias because it substitutes fear-based associations for reasonable debate and factual analysis. Due to this partisan framing, the article may spread misinformation by shaping public perception through rhetoric rather than facts--which can lead to misinformed opinions and decisions. This article is an example of medium to very right bias.

The author compares a female, Democratic electoral candidate to Willie Horton as a way to frame her as enabling dangerous crime. Willie Horton, for reference, is a convicted violent offender and Tier III registered sex offender. This is an exaggerated and misleading portrayal of the candidate's actual positions on crime and public safety. Instead of focusing on evidence, policy, or voting record, the author relies on emotionally charged imagery that recalls a historically biased political attack to convey the article's message. This type of framing reflects partisan bias because it substitutes fear-based associations for reasonable debate and factual analysis. Due to this partisan framing, the article may spread misinformation by shaping public perception through rhetoric rather than facts--which can lead to misinformed opinions and decisions. This article is an example of medium to very right bias.

The author compares a female, Democratic electoral candidate to Willie Horton as a way to frame her as enabling dangerous crime. Willie Horton, for reference, is a convicted violent offender and Tier III registered sex offender. This is an exaggerated and misleading portrayal of the candidate's actual positions on crime and public safety. Instead of focusing on evidence, policy, or voting record, the author relies on emotionally charged imagery that recalls a historically biased political attack to convey the article's message. This type of framing reflects partisan bias because it substitutes fear-based associations for reasonable debate and factual analysis. Due to this partisan framing, the article may spread misinformation by shaping public perception through rhetoric rather than facts--which can lead to misinformed opinions and decisions. This article is an example of medium to very right bias.

The author compares a female, Democratic electoral candidate to Willie Horton as a way to frame her as enabling dangerous crime. Willie Horton, for reference, is a convicted violent offender and Tier III registered sex offender. This is an exaggerated and misleading portrayal of the candidate's actual positions on crime and public safety. Instead of focusing on evidence, policy, or voting record, the author relies on emotionally charged imagery that recalls a historically biased political attack to convey the article's message. This type of framing reflects partisan bias because it substitutes fear-based associations for reasonable debate and factual analysis. Due to this partisan framing, the article may spread misinformation by shaping public perception through rhetoric rather than facts--which can lead to misinformed opinions and decisions. This article is an example of medium to very right bias.

This article is not outright wrong. However, the information contained contradicts itself, and also has a somewhat conservative bias. Trump told CNN that Israel had stopped attacks on Gaza, and yet a report was released stating 65 people in Gaza were killed due to Israeli airstrikes, and the article does not outright acknowledge Trump's statement as wrong. Additionally, the CNN reporter assumes that Sen. Linsday Graham's interpretation of Hamas basically rejecting Trump's proposal was incorrect, by asking Trump, "Was he wrong?"