Previous Troubling Reports

The title appears to try and be centered by using "may" as a less assertive suggestion, but the author repeatedly paints Harris and Walz as an anti-Jewish ticket. This quote, "Was her decision to sidestep Mr. Shapiro, some wonder, overly deferential to progressive activists who many Jews believe have veered past anti-Israel fervor into anti-Jewish bigotry?" begins by making it seem as if Harris' choice to choose Walz was a personal slight against Shapiro, when in reality, there were many options for VP and a decision-making process that we (the public) do not have full insight into. This rhetorical question also makes it seem as if progressives are overjoyed by Walz's nomination and Harris' stance on Israel when a lot of leftists are still disappointed by the lack of solidarity for Palestine that this Democratic ticket has shown and are actively protesting at campaign events. The author acknowledges that several Jewish organizations have expressed support for Harris but then chooses to emphasize strongly biased language from Jewish people who dislike her, such as, "The extremists who have been waging this campaign are going to declare victory, whether it’s true or not."

The reason this article is concerning to me is that the headline tries to make it clear that he is a Chinese asset. However, the opposite is true and he does not hold any favoring views of the communist party. He has been to China but mainly to teach English and for his honeymoon which does not have any association with the ruling party in China. People who look at the headline will think that this person is an asset without reading the article and finding out what he did when he was in China.

The reason this article is concerning to me is that the headline tries to make it clear that he is a Chinese asset. However, the opposite is true and he does not hold any favoring views of the communist party. He has been to China but mainly to teach English and for his honeymoon which does not have any association with the ruling party in China. People who look at the headline will think that this person is an asset without reading the article and finding out what he did when he was in China.

To me, this article is simply run on nothing more than fear mongering language designed to simply install fear about Kamala Harris' campaign rather than reason the alternative on why Harris' policies my do more harm than good. On top of that, she uses this language to exaggerate facts to a ridiculous degree. For example, she uses a direct quote that a GOP senator sent to her via email that claims that Walz "lost his home congressional district badly", while ignoring the fact that the district itself voted majority republican on many elections. For me, this felt less like an actual opinion piece meant to educate and give a point of view on a topic and more like an angry rant meant to spread fear and anger.

This article is not balanced. It mocks Kamala's choice of Walz, making it seem a copy of Trump's pick of Vance. It also uses flowery language to describe him throughout.

The bias in this article is already incredibly obvious and in-your-face without even reading it. The article goes on in bringing up and discussing apparent parallels between President Trump and Adolf Hitler. It goes on from their rhetoric, campaign promises and rise to popularity and power. The cause for concern from this Salon article should be obvious. The author is deliberately comparing and equating a former United States president to one of the most infamous, arguably most infamous, dictator in modern history. And for the record, I don't like President Trump. I have several reservations about his talking points and policies. But to compare him, or any politician regardless of party, to a genocidal fascist is ridiculous and troubling. Making this comparison does not help with the common polarization already present in American politics. By making this comparison, all it does is deepen demonization of the opposing candidate, party and its supporters. And by doing this, it can have the effect of causing people to dehumanize their fellow Americans and see them as a hostile "other," rather than promote cooperation, compromise, unity and a shared national identity.

The bias in this article is already incredibly obvious and in-your-face without even reading it. The article goes on in bringing up and discussing apparent parallels between President Trump and Adolf Hitler. It goes on from their rhetoric, campaign promises and rise to popularity and power. The cause for concern from this Salon article should be obvious. The author is deliberately comparing and equating a former United States president to one of the most infamous, arguably most infamous, dictator in modern history. And for the record, I don't like President Trump. I have several reservations about his talking points and policies. But to compare him, or any politician regardless of party, to a genocidal fascist is ridiculous and troubling. Making this comparison does not help with the common polarization already present in American politics. By making this comparison, all it does is deepen demonization of the opposing candidate, party and its supporters. And by doing this, it can have the effect of causing people to dehumanize their fellow Americans and see them as a hostile "other," rather than promote cooperation, compromise, unity and a shared national identity.

The bias in this article is already incredibly obvious and in-your-face without even reading it. The article goes on in bringing up and discussing apparent parallels between President Trump and Adolf Hitler. It goes on from their rhetoric, campaign promises and rise to popularity and power. The cause for concern from this Salon article should be obvious. The author is deliberately comparing and equating a former United States president to one of the most infamous, arguably most infamous, dictator in modern history. And for the record, I don't like President Trump. I have several reservations about his talking points and policies. But to compare him, or any politician regardless of party, to a genocidal fascist is ridiculous and troubling. Making this comparison does not help with the common polarization already present in American politics. By making this comparison, all it does is deepen demonization of the opposing candidate, party and its supporters. And by doing this, it can have the effect of causing people to dehumanize their fellow Americans and see them as a hostile "other," rather than promote cooperation, compromise, unity and a shared national identity.

This article is very surface level with it's sources and it's research. In truth, I question the need to truly report this on a public forum and why people truly needed to really know this news. The article makes a quick mention of a stabbing attack that happened to a citizen, which is mostly used as a way to signify the beginning of civil unrest in the country rather than doing statistical research into these crimes, such as how often these crimes have occurred more recently, how often certain marginalized groups are being attacked, or even the location in which these attacks are most frequently happening.

This article is very surface level with it's sources and it's research. In truth, I question the need to truly report this on a public forum and why people truly needed to really know this news. The article makes a quick mention of a stabbing attack that happened to a citizen, which is mostly used as a way to signify the beginning of civil unrest in the country rather than doing statistical research into these crimes, such as how often these crimes have occurred more recently, how often certain marginalized groups are being attacked, or even the location in which these attacks are most frequently happening.

This is troubling because NewsMax is choosing to report on baseless claims that, even assuming they have no credibility, are skewed to downplay Kamala Harris. NewsMax does not cite a source in claiming that polls in key battleground states were tied, when in fact it is more likely that at this point in the race there exists a slight discrepancy among polls in favor of one candidate, based on all polls since Kamala announced her campaign. However, after citing a claim with no source, they bash a CBS News poll claiming Harris has a one-point edge over Trump. The only evidence of such was from the Trump campaign, which of course may not denote the truth. Not to mention, such a marginal difference in numbers is not likely to assist Kamala anywhere near as much as the article claims it could.

This article is troubling because it supports discussions that have painted Kamala Harris as someone who has not done enough to be qualified for the presidency. It is well known that Kamala Harris is extremely qualified given her positions as Attorney General of California, a United States Senator, and as our current Vice President. A number of presidents have held one or more of these posts before gaining office. Ultimately, headlines/articles like this one immediately skew readers' opinions and in this case, it is woefully inaccurate and somewhat defamatory towards Vice President Harris.