Previous Troubling Reports

This is troubling because it doesn't show any examples or provide any proof of this claim. The reader is just supposed to take him on his word even though he doesn't support his word with facts. It is also very clearly biased.

There is no actual proof to these allegations. They are claiming it is fact but not providing any support for this fact.

The title of this article presents extreme conservative bias, additionally, the tone throughout the article demonizes liberals. The article also presents no opposing viewpoints to defend the points he made against the news outlets in which he made his arguments. The bias in this article is severe enough to the point that it misinforms the reader about the situation.

The headline catches readers' eyes with part of a quote from an anonymous interview. But the article itself offers a doom-and-gloom perspective. The author notes, "Faith in the Biden inner circle – smaller and tighter than ever despite what they have been seeing on TV or hearing directly from top leaders in their own party – has been obliterated. Other senior political and government aides accuse them of delusion and catering to their own self-interest. Major donors are apoplectic."While many of these claims are valid and have sources very open about it, CNN does not talk about these people by name or provide additional context. Moreover, the next paragraph continues on a different note. Throughout the article, CNN's journalism reads more like an op-ed or opinion piece prophesying the end of Biden.

While this article is not wrong and there is no misinformation but I think this article has a huge left bias and claims that the democrats needs to come into power because it is what is "best" for the country.

To start, the title negatively portrays Schiff by calling him "shifty". The article also only takes quotes from Schiff, resulting in an absence of opposing sources. This lack of opposing sources creates a bias against Biden; Schiff believes that Biden should withdraw from the election, and there are no quotes stating that Biden should not withdraw. In this way, readers are encouraged to believe that Biden should withdraw.

This article is troubling because it argues that Biden cheated to win the 2020 election against Trump. This is a case of election denial, and it has been debunked by almost all major news outlets.

This article seeks to describe a “new” image of Donald Trump being put forward at the Republican National Convention in Milkwaukee. While it includes quotes from several of Trump’s family members and associates, it paints him in a negative light. The bias is very clear against him and his policies (expressed in the title alone). For example, author Adam Nagourney writes: “The gap between the reality of Mr. Trump and the portrait painted at his nominating convention may prove to be too vast for any Republican makeover.” Nagourney takes a rather subjective stance throughout this piece, which makes it difficult for readers to form unbiased opinions. If the author had omitted personal statements and beliefs, the report would be more reliable.

Although somewhat true, the article title and its contents tend to take a quote out of context and misconstrue its meaning. An MSNBC host said that Biden recovering from COVID presents himself as overcoming a challenge and allows him an opportunity to show strength, similar to how Trump has so far handled himself after an assassination attempt on him. However, the way the article words things and orders quotes makes the MSNBC host seem very partisan, almost to say she suggested that COVID is worse than a bullet. However, she never claims this, nor does she really downplay the assassination attempt.

While this is indeed an opinion article, there is no semblance of respect. From the title to even the wording, this article simply flat out bashed the left without providing any evidence to back up the claims.

The article does well at including both sides of the issue, by quoting and paraphrasing words from both those in favor of Trump's choice of Vance as vice president, and those against it. However, some parts place the Biden-Harris campaign and Democrats in a negative frame. For example, the author writes, "The Biden-Harris campaign wasted no time attacking Vance, despite Biden’s Sunday evening call on Americans to 'lower the temperature' after Trump was wounded in a Saturday afternoon assassination attempt." Another section states, "The selection of Vance kicked the Democratic opposition research teams into gear...opposition research teams will have an opportunity to try to spook the public on Vance..."

For starters, this article continuously raises questions about how a 20-year-old gunman was able to get on the roof of a building so close to the rally. They portray Trump's administration negatively as if they were unprepared or careless with security. The author clearly has a liberal stance on the issue, as it is made clear throughout the article that the Secret Service warned Trump that these types of gatherings were dangerous, especially in light of recent threats.