Previous Troubling Reports

This article takes every chance it gets to denigrate Donald Trump. It presents quotes from Democrats in a positive light and quotes from Republicans in a negative light.

This article takes every chance it gets to denigrate Donald Trump. It presents quotes from Democrats in a positive light and quotes from Republicans in a negative light.

This article takes every chance it gets to denigrate Donald Trump. It presents quotes from Democrats in a positive light and quotes from Republicans in a negative light.

Parts of the article display clear bias toward conservatives and overhype sentiments that politicians and voters have commonly shared for the past few years. For example, the author sees term limits on justices as radical. They are currently unconstitutional because the amendment has not been changed. The author tries to imply that Biden will swiftly sign executive orders to change this rather than go through the amendment process, which he is trying to advocate for. Finally, the author attempts to tie these changes to the current policy state of America and recent court cases. This is yet again misleading as possible bribes and court instability have raised these questions more than rulings the justices have given.

Parts of the article display clear bias toward conservatives and overhype sentiments that politicians and voters have commonly shared for the past few years. For example, the author sees term limits on justices as radical. They are currently unconstitutional because the amendment has not been changed. The author tries to imply that Biden will swiftly sign executive orders to change this rather than go through the amendment process, which he is trying to advocate for. Finally, the author attempts to tie these changes to the current policy state of America and recent court cases. This is yet again misleading as possible bribes and court instability have raised these questions more than rulings the justices have given.

Parts of the article display clear bias toward conservatives and overhype sentiments that politicians and voters have commonly shared for the past few years. For example, the author sees term limits on justices as radical. They are currently unconstitutional because the amendment has not been changed. The author tries to imply that Biden will swiftly sign executive orders to change this rather than go through the amendment process, which he is trying to advocate for. Finally, the author attempts to tie these changes to the current policy state of America and recent court cases. This is yet again misleading as possible bribes and court instability have raised these questions more than rulings the justices have given.

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.