Previous Troubling Reports

I have a few issues with this article, it tries to portray Vice President Harris as humane and tough on enforcing the law when it comes to immigration. Yet in the same article, it admits that she supports, "...legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants." If you are a true supporter of the law then you would under no circumstance support citizenship for those who broke it. Furthermore, NPR is trying to cover for the administration in their catastrophic handling of the southern border when they know, I know, and we all know, that if the President of the United States of America wanted to, he could, along with the Vice President, seal the border right now. The Vice President could call the President and suggest he declare a state of emergency that would give her more power to go after criminals and illegal immigrants but the administration continues to NOT do that, I wonder why? Say what you will about the incompetence of Donald Trump's administration, the point is that Kamala Harri's boss is the most powerful man on the planet. He can if he wanted to, fix the border issue once and for all by making the difficult and controversial choices of deporting illegal immigrants. But recent administrations on both sides haven't had the spine to do so thus far. They both use the issue for political gain and its getting old.

The article takes an extreme conservative and pro-Israel stance, not giving the pro-Palestine viewpoint offered by Coates fair consideration in the show segment the article is about. None of Coates' words are quoted in the article. Dokoupil (the journalist in the headline) and tweets supporting his more pro-Israeli perspective are the only side directly shown. The article describes Coates' views as having "deeply flawed logic," revealing the blatant bias of the writer. It's sourcing is from other right-leaning sources as well, meaning opposite viewpoints are largely absent. Overall, this article does not offer a primarily informative and objective look at what happened during Coates' interview. It takes a very clear side, while completely omitting or dismissing the arguments from the other direction. By not covering the pro-Palestinian perspective or why some might be critical of Dokoupil's conduct in good faith, it inaccurately portrays those positions. It's an article that pushes readers towards an opinion on an issue while largely omitting and deliberately misconstruing by implication the alternative one.

The headline asserts that Elon Musk's political positions is the main reason a California Commission rejected a Space Force Plan for SpaceX launches, when the linked Politico article it's pulling from (and the actual article itself) reveals a much more nuanced situation involving a variety of issues, with major points of contention involving the military's request to exempt SpaceX from obtaining their own permits, and the military not committing to conditions to protect the environment and public access to the coast. The language used in the headline seeks to get readers to form a quick impression on the situation that's stripped of all nuance, and also an inaccurate evaluation of it.

This article shows atleast some liberal bias in the writing of the piece. The title starts off by saying that there is a big difference between the the two campaigns of who is backing each candidate for presidency. The article mentions that the only person hitting the campaign trail for Trump is his son while Harris has a lot more people. The way it is written seems to be making fun of the fact that the only person for Trump is his son. Also, that the more people are large names in the political field including Barack Obama. The article makes a big deal of the fact that Obama is campaigning for Harris and Walz while there is not some one of that stature for Trump. The article also ends with saying that the Trump campaign and the RNC cannot compete with that number of people showing up for Harris and Walz.

This article is shows a liberal bias. Just the first couple of sentences utilizes syntax that is biased against Trump: “He still appears to have little clue” and “What’s even richer”. There is a mocking and sarcastic tone being utilized, without providing a counter argument or the other side in order to establish a balanced perspective

This article is shows a liberal bias. Just the first couple of sentences utilizes syntax that is biased against Trump: “He still appears to have little clue” and “What’s even richer”. There is a mocking and sarcastic tone being utilized, without providing a counter argument or the other side in order to establish a balanced perspective

This news is troubling to me because of the blatant misinformation meant to cause distrust and fear in people who easily believe in what they hear. As someone from North Carolina, I'm absolutely confused and shocked at the rumors about the federal government being able to control the weather - specifically Hurricane Helene - so that they can bulldoze Chimney Rock and mine for Lithium there. What? In addition, there is apparently speculation that the government is controlling the weather to specifically hit more Republican areas. What? It just astounds me that there is so much misinformation like this out there, and that people believe it. I appreciate the President taking the time to dispel these rumors and pledge his support for hurricane recovery efforts.

The Op-Ed does little more than to cherry pick at Mrs. Harris' answers and try to paint her in an antagonistic light. The language and formatting displayed comes across as petty and childish, but what truly bothers me is that one of the article's arguments is how none of the questions or answers were surprising or gotchas. I feel its expected for interviews with politicians to have answers from previous interviews, so this criticism holds almost no water. The article could've made the argument that she didn't elaborate or even give a different POV on her plans or answers, but the article didn't.

First off, this article is biased, second, it is trying to frame the issue as if the entire border issue currently is Donald Trump's fault. However, The Daily Beast fails to mention that the White House and the Vice President DOES have the unilateral authority to declare a state of emergency and deploy troops along the border. But they don't, I wonder why?

It reports on an MSNBC segment where panelists, including Nicole Wallace and Rachel Maddow, criticized Senator J.D. Vance for not answering whether he believes Trump lost the 2020 election during a debate. They labeled his non-answer as a significant moment, suggesting it undermined his performance. It shows liberal bias, highlighting the panelists' mockery without offering a balanced perspective. It simplifies Vance’s political career by implying it solely stems from Trump’s actions. Additionally, the claim that Vance is the "first vice presidential candidate in history who doesn’t know who lost the last election" is misleading, because it lacks context about his candidacy.

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."