Previous Troubling Reports

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 is troubling news as it is a very biased and selective article, clearing attempting to paint a one sided picture of Harris' economic strategy. The title is very clickbait like in nature and uses opinionated phrased before even starting the article, revealing where the author stands. Also in the beginning of the article the author refers to "economists" several times, but doesn't specify what economists creating a large generalization. While it does provide several perspectives of economists, they all have strong political affiliations/motivations which make their judgments clouded with political bias.

This news was troubling to me only because it was initially not advertised as an opinion article. Once you click on the article, it says that it is an opinion article but otherwise, it does not. Headlines like this contribute to media bias.

This article highlights personal attacks on Harris and criticisms of her policies. It also underscores Trump's accusations against Harris and Biden. Trump's economic claims and how it is contradicted by recent inflation data is mentioned, it suggests that his statements are part of a broader campaign strategy. There are no arguments from Harris' side so it shows lack of a balanced point of view. Additionally, a lot of the tone used is not serious; it is more sarcastic.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Harris' policy proposals, it does no one good to call price controls "communism" hyperbolically, rate each policy proposal on a scale of 1-5 "hammer and sickles", and then put "economic plan" in scare quotes. The tone of this article is probably explained by the fact that the author is the co-founder of a PAC, Unleash Prosperity, which promotes supply-side economics. Two choice excerpts from their mission statement say more about them than I ever could:"Supply-Side is not, as defamed by its detractors, “trickle-down,” enacting big economic advantages, such as tax cuts, for the rich while workers get scraps. It is “across-the-board.” Unleash Prosperity’s creed, as stated by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations holds that “It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.” (Emphasis supplied.)""Unleash Prosperity’s mission is not partisan and not political. Our mission simply is to identify those policies best suited to unleashing prosperity and to educate policy makers on the best practices to achieve equitable prosperity. " - or so they claim.

This article displays misinformation in addition to a heavy conservative bias. First, the author claims that the Biden administration is directly involved in the suspect's release, citing an AP news report on the incident. However, that article does not claim that the Biden administration ordered his release, in reality, his administration had little to do with the situation. The article displays an extremely negative tone and tendency toward the Biden administration throughout, The reader, if only absorbing the information from this article without any outside information, will obtain a warped and incorrect perspective on the situation.

This article displays misinformation in addition to a heavy conservative bias. First, the author claims that the Biden administration is directly involved in the suspect's release, citing an AP news report on the incident. However, that article does not claim that the Biden administration ordered his release, in reality, his administration had little to do with the situation. The article displays an extremely negative tone and tendency toward the Biden administration throughout, The reader, if only absorbing the information from this article without any outside information, will obtain a warped and incorrect perspective on the situation.

This article appears biased and unreliable due to its sensational tone and lack of balance in reporting. The language used, such as when describing Trump's actions and comments, is sarcastic and sensational, which seems intent on appealing to emotion rather than present an objective account. Additionally, the article fails to provide a balanced perspective by not including responses or counterpoints from Vice President Harris or her supporters, which contributes to a one-sided narrative.

To me, while it is important to give out people's perspectives of certain events and politicians, especially if they are descended from the same state, I found this article to not only be highly biased, but also unprofessional in may areas. While her contempt for Walz's handling of the George Floyd protests are understandable, her language indicates the entire thing was 100% on him without considering Walz's reaction to how the arson and protests worsened. Furthermore, she lost track and started talking about personal problems, such as her friends leaving her over differing opinions over the pandemic and politics and worded them in a way that tried to put blame on Walz's leadership. That's what I found most problematic about this Op-Ed. Not only does it clearly show intention to demonize rather than educate, but it also lacked professionalism by telling the reader that Tim Walz was the reason she lost her friends.

This article demonstrates bias through its tone, word choice, and overall framing. The use of dismissive language like "Hidin’ Harris" and the characterization of the vice president as "unremarkable" reflect a clear intent to portray Kamala Harris negatively. The article repeatedly criticizes her for avoiding interviews and public scrutiny, framing her as evasive and unfit for leadership without presenting any counterarguments or context for her actions. Additionally, the frequent use of loaded questions and hypothetical scenarios suggests a deliberate effort to undermine her credibility and amplify distrust. Lastly, the author does not adequately portray a balanced viewpoint, focusing solely on their own biased perspective without voicing opinions from the opposing side.

The intent of this article and its author are clear, it's trying to equate JD Vance with Prime Minister Viktor Orban of Hungary. Now there is plenty to criticize with regards to Orban and his administration, but to compare an American vice presidential candidate with a known authoritative strongman can be concerning. By making this comparison, it not only tries to convince readers to believe but can also cause them to demonize anyone who votes for that candidate. This in turn increases polarization and division, which we cannot afford.