Previous Troubling Reports

The language used in both the title of the article as well as the content is clearly polarising and misleading as it is in quotes, implying that the term "trump-proof", was used by governor Gavin Newsom himself, when it, in fact, was not. This kind of grey area headlining is precisely the sort of partisan language that can be misinterpreted by people who only read headlines and then spread as misinformation.

This article represents the events in Amsterdam as one-sided aggression towards the Israeli soccer fans, failing to mention that those soccer fans were the group that started confrontations and creating tensions days prior, having chanted anti-Palestine slogans that bordered on genocidal rhetoric ("Why are there no schools in Gaza, because there are no kids in Gaza"), assaulted a taxi driver, and teared down Palestinian flags inside the houses of locals. Given these provocations from visitors, it's no surprise that there was a response from locals, including pro-Palestine ones. The characterization of this clash as a "pogrom" or "purely anti-Semitic" ignores the existing situation on the ground, and how the Israeli soccer fans' actions and misconduct while abroad produced such a response. Simply put, it is misinformation to characterize this fight as a result of anti-Semitism, when the disruptive and at time violent behavior of the Maccabi fans were what started the situation. The violence is correctly condemned, but pretending that the Maccabi fans did not provoke anyone is simply false.

This article is working on comfirmation bias that the left and democrats are looking for in the election of President-elect Trump on November 5th. It makes it clear the writer does not like the idea that Trump has earned a second term. It calls out Trumps legal battles, calling him a liar, and politically ignorant while also saying that the Republican party eats everything he says up. Like I said this is all working on the comfirmation bias to make the left and democrats feel better after the election since they did not vote for Trump. The article also calls out other Republican members by saying they are humiliating themselves this election cycle and results. It says that Trump is the darkest light, grotesque version in politics which shows again the bias that the article has.

This is troubling to me from numerous standpoints - the first of which being that it's not entirely untrue. Donald Trump has had an odd track record of just sort of saying things, even when he probably shouldn't be saying them. However, the author of this article is clearly biased against Trump, even going as far as to claim that his own party is worried and distrusts him in the title. I don't think Trump is really helping his own case, but an article like this doesn't make it any better, either. The entirety of the article is written on Trump and his tendency to spread misinformation, which is just fine since he does tend to do that. But it's the specific mention of Republicans also being worried that makes it seem like there's an underlying goal here.

This article is a little more truthful than many articles covering this issue, but it still creates a problematic rhetoric. The article frames Thurman's death as a result of abortion laws when that is certainly not the case. Thuman's death was a result of complications following the abortion pill, along with medical malpractice from medical professionals. It is very true that the doctors attending to Thurman made many mistakes and did not handle her situation correctly. However, Thurman's death could have been prevented if she simply chose not to get an abortion. The framing of this article contributes to many misconceptions about abortion laws and methods. It would be much more transparent if the article instead focused on the dangers of the abortion pill and how it could be fatal if used incorrectly.

This article shows clear bias by presenting only Maye Musk's critical views on Kamala Harris and the Democratic Party without offering any counterpoints. The selective quotes and loaded language paint Harris and Democrats negatively, implying that Democrats are trying to stifle Elon Musk's innovation without evidence or alternative perspectives. For balanced reporting, it would have been helpful to include voices from both sides or provide context on Harris’s policies and achievements. This one-sided approach can mislead readers and reinforce existing biases rather than provide an objective view.

This article tries to cast doubt on the election process of Fulton County, calling the practice in question "shady," without offering an explanation of why this county might have this drop-off system in place. It also exclusively includes right-wing sources and quotes, with no liberal viewpoints to be found. In the 2024 presidential election, sensational headlines such as this one can end up casting unfounded suspicion on legitimate processes if not handled with care. Due to the lack of balanced sourcing and opposite viewpoints, I do not think this article has handled this with care.

I find this article troubling because the headline highlights Trump and MAGA activists potentially planning to disrupt the Presidential inauguration in the event of Kamala Harris possibly winning the election. Such actions could lead to widespread unrest and undermine public trust in the electoral system. It raises concerns about the potential chaos and instability on Jan. 6 if efforts are pursued to overturn the election results. Within the article, many Trump supporters, including some representatives like Majorie Taylor Green, promote ridiculous rhetoric of the notion of the election being stolen and the election process being broken. The spread of such rhetoric and planned disruption could incite violence and lead to another potentially dangerous clash. In hindsight, the article does not contain misinformation. However, CNN's choice of publicizing to amplify this particular voice can heighten fears and tensions, potentially escalating conflicts and deepening divisions.

The headline already says it all, calling the New York Times newspaper fascist when that simply isn't true by any definition of the word. It goes on to describe the events in question is a manner that is heavily biased towards the conservative viewpoint, while assuming what the newspaper's motives are with insufficient evidence. The constant references to the center-left paper or its readership as "far-left" does not help this article's validity. It adheres to the erroneous idea that the 2020 election was fraudulent, and discards the notion that perhaps those conservative commentators did post videos that contained election misinformation, whether unintentional or intentional, in favor of aforementioned sensational speculating. This article isn't meant to inform, it's meant to push a biased viewpoint.

Since Halloween was yesterday, here's something sort of funny and not election related for once - misinformation was spread on a website called myspirithalloween.com, which claimed that there was a Halloween Parade taking place in Dublin, Ireland. This was in fact false, but the claim managed to dupe thousands of people into packing the streets, expecting a celebration that was not going to happen. The site claims to be based in Illinois, but all evidence collected point to the people or person behind it being based in Pakistan. This is worrying just because it's a site created to generate advertising revenue and create fake social media posts, AI-generated text, etc. Kind of insane how well these things can work sometimes.

The article starts off quickly with being troubling in the title as it likens Harris to a toddler. Also, that what Vance says about it was brilliant. This shows the article's bias from the get go as right-leaning. The article's first opening lines do the same of showing bias with saying Harris lies a lot which makes it hard to understand her policies. The article talks multiple times about her apparent lying and tries to make cases for it as well. This article does not even try to hide it's bias which is why it is troubling news.

The article appears to show bias against Trump, emphasizing the negative aspects of Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. It describes the event as "violent and vulgar," with "divisive remarks," and highlights off-color jokes and racist statements made by speakers, implying a chaotic lack of message control. The article underscores the disapproval from Trump’s allies, referencing them as "deeply concerned" and includes quotes criticizing the offensive content. While it notes Trump’s distancing from some remarks, it does not balance this with details on any positive responses from attendees. Additionally, the piece gives weight to Democratic reactions, such as Bad Bunny’s support for Harris, suggesting an imbalance in perspective.