Previous Troubling Reports

The bias in this Politico article is clear and the piece portrays more right wing politicians as the but of a joke. That joke being that no matter how hard they try to emulate Donald Trump's manner of speaking or humor, they fall off short and as a result don't look good to voter. The article points to multiple figure such as JD Vance, Blake Masters and Donald Trump Jr. as examples and seems more interested in making fun of them more than anything. Now this kind of content may have its place on a talk show or some other entertainment outlet, but for a news paper to do it doesn't seem appropriate. Their job is to report not jest. What would've been more constructive would have possibly been a more in depth analysis of how politicians try to mimic each others speech, talking style or rhetoric to gain support rather than just making fun of them.

A speech made in 2014 by Kamala Harris is being misconstrued and taken out of context to be pitted against her. At the time, Harris was delivering a speech on her new program as California Attorney General, "Back on Track," aimed at reducing recidivism among young, nonviolent offenders. When referencing the often rash decisions made by youth aged 18-24, which typically include little to no thought or consideration for the outcomes, she called the population of this phase of life "stupid." Recent social media posts have been edited only to include this excerpt and make it seem as though she was insulting the intelligence of the age group as a whole. Rather, she was referencing that the brain is not done developing at this point, and this may contribute to regretful decisions that land some youth in prison.

A speech made in 2014 by Kamala Harris is being misconstrued and taken out of context to be pitted against her. At the time, Harris was delivering a speech on her new program as California Attorney General, "Back on Track," aimed at reducing recidivism among young, nonviolent offenders. When referencing the often rash decisions made by youth aged 18-24, which typically include little to no thought or consideration for the outcomes, she called the population of this phase of life "stupid." Recent social media posts have been edited only to include this excerpt and make it seem as though she was insulting the intelligence of the age group as a whole. Rather, she was referencing that the brain is not done developing at this point, and this may contribute to regretful decisions that land some youth in prison.

The problem with this article is how there is a difference in reaction between Trump and Harris on this topic but is overblown by the author. Trump might have gone overboard with saying that those burning flags should go to jail. However, both he and Harris publicly agree that flag burning should not be done. They tie the idea of banning flag burning to a more extreme case of a man in Hong Kong getting in trouble for covering his ears during the Chinese national anthem. Strong comparisons such as this are unnecessary and serve as a form of fear-mongering that should not be in news reporting.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

The article does not give proof of a substantial amount of viewers that believed the performance to be anti-Christian, and the author labels it "blasphemous art." Only one company has pulled its advertising because of this stance, but the article blows this out of proportion to make it seem as though many "Christians around the world" were offended. The only evidence they use is random, uncredited Twitter posts.

This is troubling news for me because the article is very open to interpretation on what is a serious, and historically divisive issue. Hearing Donald Trump say something like this could be cause for worry following the events of Jan. 6th. That said, in this particular clip, Trump clearly tells the audience to vote and then that they won't have to worry about it for four more years. While Donald Trump has said plenty of questionable things in the past, it is important for headlines to not stroke the flames for people who already strongly dislike him because it could cause greater societal tension.

The reason why this article is troubling is because Trump's claims are amplified without proper possible context. Many of the claims he makes are based in speculation and assumption rather than proper fact and context. The article does offer some resistance as it says that Trump does not have sources for his claims. However, the article continues to include quotes from his social media posts that attack VP Harris. Of his quotes, including those that attack possible Jewish voters for Harris are not appropriate and can be considered degrading. There is never an attempt to explain why Harris possibly did not attend Netanyahu's speech which further paints her as seemingly anti-Israel and showing a conservative bias.