Previous Troubling Reports

The author uses the words "psyop" and "manufactured stardom" to suggest that Kamala Harris' popularity is an unnatural, fake false narrative that the left is promoting to trick voters. This is not true and directly disproven by the photo from her successful campaign rally in Atlanta. The article's headline tries create mistrust about the Democratic party, along with using the term "left-wing hysteria" in the body. The author also falsely claims, "She encouraged donations to a bail-reform group that released violent criminals, including sex offenders, back onto the streets." In reality, Harris worked to penalize sex offenders and tighten laws regarding sexual assault.

The article serves as a way to attack Trump and Vance by discrediting the campaign work they have been doing. Everyone is entitled to their own opinions but when it comes to reporting about a campaign, there needs to be more professionalism and less bias. Name-calling Trump and using strong language are not correct. Claiming that Trump and Vance are hard to sell to the public very much alienates the millions of people who have been supporting them and the many others who will vote for them in November.

Even the headline alone displays a great amount of bias and false/misleading claims. This article shows a very conservative stance, and the author disparages Harris through many inaccurate/misleading claims about her, her campaign, and her staff. This article is troubling because it feeds into false narratives about Harris generated by Conservatives, blurring what is true about her and her campaign.

This article displays a heavy bias in favor of Israel regarding the ongoing conflict and subsequent protests. First, the title of the article displays a bias, leading the reader to form a negative opinion of the protesters who support Palestine. Additionally, the author throughout the article displays a similar tone, with the author emphasizing actions that the Palestinians committed that negatively affected Israel. This article does not offer a balanced view of the ongoing conflict, rather, ai attempts to convince the reader of Palestinian wrongdoing.

This article talks about how Harris wants to defend and fight for reproductive rights. The article is factual correct. However I think this article is very biased. The article talks about the lack of understanding and committment to protect women rights and that the democrats are correct and that they should be elected this year so that they can get back those rights.

This is less of a biased article than one that seems profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Of course people are getting more tuned in politically as the election looms closer. Politics is as susceptible to manufactured hype as any other media-driven phenomenon, and we shouldn't need people writing articles that simply regurgitate truisms. Combine this with other eye-rollingly obvious statistics, like the fact that MSNBC viewership surged from 1 million to 1.7 week-to-week during primetime after Kamala Harris' candidacy was announced, and it really makes you wonder what journalists get paid for.

This is less of a biased article than one that seems profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Of course people are getting more tuned in politically as the election looms closer. Politics is as susceptible to manufactured hype as any other media-driven phenomenon, and we shouldn't need people writing articles that simply regurgitate truisms. Combine this with other eye-rollingly obvious statistics, like the fact that MSNBC viewership surged from 1 million to 1.7 week-to-week during primetime after Kamala Harris' candidacy was announced, and it really makes you wonder what journalists get paid for.

This is less of a biased article than one that seems profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Of course people are getting more tuned in politically as the election looms closer. Politics is as susceptible to manufactured hype as any other media-driven phenomenon, and we shouldn't need people writing articles that simply regurgitate truisms. Combine this with other eye-rollingly obvious statistics, like the fact that MSNBC viewership surged from 1 million to 1.7 week-to-week during primetime after Kamala Harris' candidacy was announced, and it really makes you wonder what journalists get paid for.

This is less of a biased article than one that seems profoundly stupid and unnecessary. Of course people are getting more tuned in politically as the election looms closer. Politics is as susceptible to manufactured hype as any other media-driven phenomenon, and we shouldn't need people writing articles that simply regurgitate truisms. Combine this with other eye-rollingly obvious statistics, like the fact that MSNBC viewership surged from 1 million to 1.7 week-to-week during primetime after Kamala Harris' candidacy was announced, and it really makes you wonder what journalists get paid for.

As much as Harris receives criticism on the border issue, the headline is not appropriate nor does it give readers a fair chance to assess her performance. The article is filled with strong negative language bashing Harris. There are better and more respectful ways to critique a politician's handling of a certain issue. Even though there are valid concerns about illegal immigration, the article uses language that makes it an astounding problem, in a way promoting fear-mongering and exaggeration.

In this short article, Republican representative Claudia Tenney of New York gave Newsmax an interview extremely biased against Biden and portrayed what I believe to be falsities that should not be spread on a news platform. Regarding Biden's dealings with 9-11 masterminds, Tenney says that the Biden administration is "pro-criminal" and "they don't support victims." I found it very troubling she said that Biden does not support victims of 9/11 because a man like him, who has dedicated his life to this country, of course, supports victims of something as devastating as 9-11.

There are many reasons why I find this article troubling, the main one being the false narrative that Kamala Harris has done nothing and does not have strong policy stances. I know this to be false, as she was a successful prosecutor in San Francisco and has done a great deal over her career. She also has strong policy stances, specifically on reproductive rights for women. I found O'Leary's perception of Kamala to be rather misogynistic, using negative language and saying she is inferior to Trump, a perception I feel he does not have merit for and, therefore, should not be spread in a news article.