Previous Troubling Reports

I find this article to be problematic because the title is misleading. It suggests that a coal-fired power plant found a way to solve clean energy. At the very least it is poor wording, at the very worst, it is nefarious in intent. Because the average person may immediately think, "Wow, maybe fossil fuels aren't so bad after all." And then share this article on Facebook or something and then all the climate deniers will immediately dog pile on it. Fossil fuels are incredibly pollutive and this title is deeply irresponsible in that it lead readers to believe they may actually help the country as oppose to hurt it. That weakens the overall green argument and is problematic.

This article is troubling because it suggests that Haitians are stealing geese from parks as an open-ended question and does not do anything to help mitigate false rumors about Haitian immigrants that have been going around on social media.

This article is slightly problematic for its unequal focus on Trump's perspectives and claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators. Many quotes illustrating Trump's attacks on Harris were presented, but none of Harris's arguments against Trump's perspectives. This shows a bias towards Trump's ideas. The author also mentions claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators, but the evidence comes from other peoples' commentary, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, rather than a thorough analysis of the debate itself.

This article is slightly problematic for its unequal focus on Trump's perspectives and claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators. Many quotes illustrating Trump's attacks on Harris were presented, but none of Harris's arguments against Trump's perspectives. This shows a bias towards Trump's ideas. The author also mentions claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators, but the evidence comes from other peoples' commentary, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, rather than a thorough analysis of the debate itself.

The article is troubling because it only uses a Democratic view point, adding the opinion of a Harris aid. Furthermore, there is no focus on their policies as a way to see who "won" the debate. Americans care far more about policy than the body language of a candidate when deciding if they had a good performance and if they are worth voting for.

This article displays a significant amount of bias, the main reason being that the author does not provide any opposing viewpoints throughout the article. The author only uses one source throughout the article, that being Senator Ted Cruz, he made claims of Harris's shortcomings throughout. An opposite perspective used as an additional source within this article would have provided a more balanced perspective regarding the situation. The author especially should have targeted any information released by the Harris campaign in response to the remarks Cruz made. Overall, this article does not offer a neutral perspective on the situation, as a result, the reader may be swayed in a conservative direction.

The title of the article stuck out to me immediately because it directly claims that the 'endorsement' of Kamala Harris was a troll on Vladimir Putin's part, whereas other articles about the topic do not directly make this claim. The author also claims that this endorsement is one that is a kind of "poison to the recipient" and that Putin is simply trying to "stir the pot of US domestic politics." The article mentions both former president Donald Trump and Vice President Kamala Harris and seemingly does not hold a bias for one or the other, but the fact that the title was written the way it was raises a few flags about the true intentions of the author.

The author on this opinion piece mentions D. Earl Stephens’ essay for 'Raw Story', which criticizes the mainstream media for allegedly failing to challenge Trump effectively. It does include valid concerns about democratic institutions. However, the bias is very apparent. The portrayal of Trump as a "sociopath" and a potential dictator is one example. This kind of language lacks objectivity . It also includes speculative claims, such as Trump's plans to use the military to enforce domestic laws and establish detention camps, which are not backed up by actual evidence. It talks a lot about scenarios of violence if he wins/loses. It exaggerates a lot of things. It cannot be a balanced discussion if things are exaggerated.

This article by Newsweek is fundamentally flawed. For the same reason that is flawed for Fox News to attack the Libertarian Party, Newsweek is giving voice to dishonest comments. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez has the right to say what she wants but to call Jill Stein "predatory" may lead green voters to believe she's a con woman which would be missing the point of third party voters. Ms. Ocasio-Cortez said that if Stein spent all these years running and still hasn't won, then she is wasting people's time. What that fails to mention is that third party candidates do not expect to win, they want to bring awareness to issues. Moreover, what is actually predatory is what the Democrats are doing to Ms. Stein by attempting to remove her from the ballot to which the Supreme Court had to intervene. It is hypocrisy and dishonesty laid bare. These sort of comments from elected officials pave the way to restrict candidates from the ballot box which his fundamentally un-American.

The biggest problem with this article is how it starts. It starts with a rant against the "liberal media", shaming them for tactics and activities that the Republican Party has also done in the past. The reason why this is troubling is that it hampers the overall point of the article by painting this as a fault of the Democratic Party and trying to paint a nasty portrait of them. I mainly target the opening of the article, but the rest, despite raising good points about Kamala Harris' wobbling policies and faulty answers, muddied the point by using heavily charged language. While the article did force me to really think about Kamala's answers, it was still tarnished by faulty language and an opening that set a misinformed mood.

This article's bias is apparent and it further goes on to argue how Donald Trump, if re-elected, can become a potential dictator. I claims how he could use the proposes in Project 2025 to replace members of the Justice Department with loyalists, use the military to enforce domestic law and how he could maneuver to jail political opponents. The article also discusses scenarios of violence is Trump were to win or lose the election. As stated the bias is clear and the author seems to want to paint the former president as a wannabe dictator and his supporters as violent radicals. But radicals only crop up in larger numbers during times of polarization like now, and intensely partisan material like this doesn't help the situation. Someone with liberal leanings reading this may buy into which can lead to demonization and dehumanization of Trump's supporters. And someone with conservative leanings may double down and become more entrenched in their beliefs when reading this, seeing it as proof of a "liberal media" going after their preferred candidate. The US is already polarized enough, and to add to it is like dumping gasoline on a pyre.

A viral post claimed that 32 armed Venezuelans took over an apartment building in Chicago, backed by an audio of a police dispatch call. However, the Chicago Police Department and local aldersperson Jeanette Taylor confirmed the incident was not real. The post, shared by Libs of TikTok and reshared by Elon Musk, gained over 21 million views but was debunked as misinformation. Meta flagged the post as part of its effort to combat false news.