Previous Troubling Reports

This is yet another attempt to make Tm Walz look bad and paint an unfavorable portrait of him. The language ranges from childish to cartoony, attacking Walz for mostly petty things, which even harmed situations where the reader had a valid point, such as how Waltz responded to a question about a lie he told. Most of all, the article is guilty of trying to spread to rumor that Walz lied about his military history, when light research uncovers that he did in fact serve as a coast guard. This is a blatant lie served solely to instill mistrust amongst the population against him.

The article is biased in favor of Vance. It praises his behavior in the situation twice, stating that he "handled the situation well" and "handled it perfectly." The author also includes only quotes that speak negatively of Harris's visit to Primanti Bros., such as the following: “Holy hell, all these actors in these vans."

The article is biased against AI. This is first seen in the title, which emphasizes how AI could cause "catastrophic harms". Then, the author includes a quote stating, "The question is, are we going to allow large AI models to make it even easier and smoother for people to do things like shut down the electric grid or build a chemical weapon? It’s not science fiction at all.” The author uses a quote that emphasizes the risks of AI, without including any from those who are in support of it. The author ends the article with this quote: “Existing laws didn’t anticipate the AI era, and so there are lots of gaps in those laws. We don’t really have clarity about what to do about copyright. We don’t have clarity about what to do with machines when they go out of control in some way.” Again, the author emphasizes the dangers of AI without including any benefits.

I think this article has a very noticable bias. For starters, the entire article is about Trump escalating his usage of personal and offensive attacks to Kamala. The article also brings up all of the legal cases he is facing as well, further painting Trump in a more negative light. Furthermore, the sentence "some of Trump’s supporters said he often makes offensive remarks. Still, they support his proposals to restrict immigration and said he would have a better handle on the economy" towards the end of the article almost in a sense tries to sway readers to believe that Trump supporters are "crazy" to still vote for him despite everything the article has laid out thus far. With the omitting of any "negative" portrayals on the Democratic side, it is clear that there is a bias.

I think this article has a very noticable bias. For starters, the entire article is about Trump escalating his usage of personal and offensive attacks to Kamala. The article also brings up all of the legal cases he is facing as well, further painting Trump in a more negative light. Furthermore, the sentence "some of Trump’s supporters said he often makes offensive remarks. Still, they support his proposals to restrict immigration and said he would have a better handle on the economy" towards the end of the article almost in a sense tries to sway readers to believe that Trump supporters are "crazy" to still vote for him despite everything the article has laid out thus far. With the omitting of any "negative" portrayals on the Democratic side, it is clear that there is a bias.

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.