Previous Troubling Reports

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.

I do not think this article is factually correcrt and the article has a very clear bias. We can clearly see the bias of the author taking over while reported. All the reporting outside, saying that someone should not be allowed to stand again has a clear bias clouding their judgement.

I do not think this article is factually correcrt and the article has a very clear bias. We can clearly see the bias of the author taking over while reported. All the reporting outside, saying that someone should not be allowed to stand again has a clear bias clouding their judgement.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.