Previous Troubling Reports

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.

Here, Senator Schmitt’s remarks are purely conjecture. The idea that Kamala rose to become the Democrat nominee by way of a coup d’etat is catastrophizing the reality of the situation. Moreover, he makes baseless claims throughout the interview, such as Kamala being the most unpopular VP of all time and that Shapiro was not chosen as the VP candidate due to his Jewish faith.

This article contributes to the false narrative that Tim Walz is not a veteran and his service record. This is concerning because it goes to question his legitimacy as a candidate under false pretenses. It is very biased in favor of conservatives, amplifying the lies that JD Vance has been spreading about Walz.

This article contributes to the false narrative that Tim Walz is not a veteran and his service record. This is concerning because it goes to question his legitimacy as a candidate under false pretenses. It is very biased in favor of conservatives, amplifying the lies that JD Vance has been spreading about Walz.

This article contributes to the false narrative that Tim Walz is not a veteran and his service record. This is concerning because it goes to question his legitimacy as a candidate under false pretenses. It is very biased in favor of conservatives, amplifying the lies that JD Vance has been spreading about Walz.

This article contributes to the false narrative that Tim Walz is not a veteran and his service record. This is concerning because it goes to question his legitimacy as a candidate under false pretenses. It is very biased in favor of conservatives, amplifying the lies that JD Vance has been spreading about Walz.

This article is not only factually incorrect, it is also biased against the democrats. The article claims that the democrats' selection of the Vice President was a bad choice and that now republicans have a huge advantage. Spreading such opiniated pieces which has no basic fact supporting the hypothesis is what causes the spread of most falseinformation.

This article on Kamala Harris's "word salad" shows how misinformation and biases shape public perception. It focuses on certain instances and moments, demonstrating them in a misleading way. It mocks her competence in a way. Only selecting certain moments and emphasizing them does not give the full picture. The headline is also dramatic and the overall accuracy of the article is questionable. This kind of approach can distort the understanding and perception of the public.

This news is troubling because it shows clear bias. The title itself is biased in and of itself. Further into the article, the author continues to use biased rhetoric. For instance, the author writes "the former president held an hour-long, rambling press conference." There were many more biased statements about Trump.