Previous Troubling Reports

This news article was extremley biased. The article is against the republicans. While this article is not entirely false, however, it talks about how the republican approach to this election is wrong. They think that they have the wrong approach to the election and that they should focus on the policies of the Harris-Walz administration. The article also used sentences such as Trump's controversial opinions are not new to nay of us.

Kamala Harris in fact dated California politician Willie Brown in the '90s. However, this relationship is being misconstrued to make it seem as though Harris broke up Brown's marriage. In reality, Brown had been divorced from his wife for years before he and Harris began dating. This may not seem so troubling at first glance, yet it is a claim that can certainly hinder the credibility and therefore popularity of Kamala Harris, which would have negative rebuttals on her campaign.

There are several things that are concerning about this article that jump out immediately. The first thing is that the investigation of Walz's military record is already being termed a 'fiasco' for him even though there is no indication that this is the case. It shows its biases on its sleeve by referring to CNN as an 'anti-Trump network' and referrs to a 'bombshell report' from Jordan Schachtel that has no link or any other identifying information. I would not consider this a reliable source in any sense unless you are the kind of person who knows what they want from their news and you are not really interested in anything else.

This article does not even attempt to give opposition to the stance that Kamala Harris's picking Walz was a poor choice for a vice-presidential candidate, which is my biggest issue with the article. It essentially only includes social media posts heavily criticizing Tim Walz, and many quotes against him I find troubling including "Last time Kamala and Tim Walz teamed up: He let rioters burn Minneapolis to the ground...and she fundraiser to bail them out." Not only is this quote not true, but it is from a comedian, not a qualified person on the subject, and whose opinion should really hold no weight to people. This quote is among the many in this article to portray the false narrative that Kamala picking Walz should be the Republicans' saving grace for winning the 2024 presidential election.

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 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.