Previous Troubling Reports

It seems to be the common talking point that Biden performed poorly in the debate. Many articles have come out to say just that, and to interview people associated with him to confirm it. However, this piece is not marked as an opinion and the title raises eyebrows. Upon reading, you see lines like "Objectively, Biden produced the weakest performance since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon started the tradition of televised debates in 1960" with no citation or data to back the strong "objectively" claim. Later in the article, the author makes similar claims about Trump without any sort of sourcing or facts to back them up.

Even if I only saw the title and not the entire article, I would raise an eyebrow. The use of the word "oligarchy" and the phrase "decades-long kitchen cabinet" have clearly negative connotations and skewed against the Biden administration. The article explains how there's apparently an "oligarchy" of the president's family members and friends who influence and decide the president's decisions. It's also worth noting that the title "Behind the Curtains" seems overly sensational and meant to get people clicking rather than report news. What this article implies also seems to lend credence to age conspiratorial theories about an supposed shadow government or deep state that secretly rules the country. Such theories are hardly anything new, a glance at history will shine light upon such beliefs ranging from Queen Marie Antoinette being an Austrian spy to the many antisemitic conspiracies of a Jewish cabal. The promotion of such beliefs in the digital age where information is shared in an instant can have negative effects, as people online who may already flirt with such ideas may become fully swayed by biased pieces like this one. This can then lead to people questioning the legitimacy of a democratic mandate, and regardless of how you feel about the old man he was still elected democratically, same with Donald Trump. If people think that there's some shadow cabinet making decisions for the president, they loose faith in democratic institutions.

Even if I only saw the title and not the entire article, I would raise an eyebrow. The use of the word "oligarchy" and the phrase "decades-long kitchen cabinet" have clearly negative connotations and skewed against the Biden administration. The article explains how there's apparently an "oligarchy" of the president's family members and friends who influence and decide the president's decisions. It's also worth noting that the title "Behind the Curtains" seems overly sensational and meant to get people clicking rather than report news. What this article implies also seems to lend credence to age conspiratorial theories about an supposed shadow government or deep state that secretly rules the country. Such theories are hardly anything new, a glance at history will shine light upon such beliefs ranging from Queen Marie Antoinette being an Austrian spy to the many antisemitic conspiracies of a Jewish cabal. The promotion of such beliefs in the digital age where information is shared in an instant can have negative effects, as people online who may already flirt with such ideas may become fully swayed by biased pieces like this one. This can then lead to people questioning the legitimacy of a democratic mandate, and regardless of how you feel about the old man he was still elected democratically, same with Donald Trump. If people think that there's some shadow cabinet making decisions for the president, they loose faith in democratic institutions.

This article is concerned not with displaying facts but instead with generalizing the entire LGBTQ group and equating the political atmosphere of 2024 with shame. The author simply ignores the diversity of composition and opinions in the group in his analysis. This is a bad-faith article written to strengthen confirmation bias."Somehow, despite Hamas’ paper trail of anti-gay violence and anti-gay laws throughout the West Bank and Gaza, myriad queer groups have backed the Palestinian cause over Israel." The author knows these people's motivation for supporting such causes and instead presents the language "somehow" to tear down both LGBTQ people and to legitimize violence in Gaza."But as marches and parades pour through London, New York and San Francisco this weekend, shame is actually the best sentiment that describes our community right now." This is a value-judgement from the author. This view is not held by everyone.

This news article is troubling because there is an evident bias for the overturning of the Chevron decision. The article emphasizes that the government agencies previously tasked with regulating laws were underqualified and unreliable. The article also claims that this new ruling keeps our government together, as the ruling that happened 40 years ago tore our government apart. This article was extremely biased and neglected to state the full facts of the ruling.

The title alone indicates that this article is not in favor of Biden. The article mentions how foreign diplomats were horrified by Biden's performance and then described it as "Biden's debate flop." Throughout this article, it mentions the lousy perception of Biden and what the Democratic party might do as a backup plan. There was mention of Trump and his performance, but nothing directly attacked his character.

The reason I selected this piece, and chose to report it as troublesome is because the author does not provide counterfactual evidence against the claims they are calling "absurd." The author does not provide sources for the figures that they include in the piece. As a reader I am not convinced that the author took steps to provide me with accurate reporting given these two criticisms.

This news is troubling for two reasons: The article cherry picks golf clips from both candidates, as if it was a fair comparison. This is not how competition works (although one's golf skills should not be an indicator of readiness for office). The other reason is that this childish debate is being picked up by OANN in order to punish one candidate and reward another for their supposed golf skills. These should not be requisite skills for office, and OANN latching onto such topics is harmful for the presidential race. Other points from the debate, like each candidate's mental strength, are much more pertinent details than golf skills.

While the title of the article suggests that the Russian government has made comments regarding the most recent presidential debate, that is not correct. The article presents statements from the Russian government saying they are not concerned with the United States domestic issues enough to focus on the debate. The article then discussed how two Russian media agencies asked an American psychiatrist to dissect the debate. At no point did any negative comments regarding Biden's performance in the debate, it was only that of the psychiatrist. The article's title seemed to suggest Russia had a documented opinion and was confident in Biden's failure.

This article is troubling because the author singles out Biden's economic policies as a central cause of retail store closures. If the author provided evidence regarding these claims, providing proof that policies President Biden enacted resulted in the closure of these stores, the article would not misinform. However, the author failed to offer any evidence concerning these issues, instead providing quotes from others who also blame the Biden administration for the problem, again without direct evidence. The article misinforms the reader, blaming the current president for issues such as "theft" with no connection to any specific policy the administration put into place. Bias is extreme within this article, and leads readers to hone their blame on the president where it may not necessarily be warranted, even if the president's policies affect the health of small businesses, the author does not prove this is the case.

This news is troubling to me because the way the headline is framed is made to make Biden look bad, but Biden himself has not commented on the discussion at all. It is all based on a conversation with an advisor. Further, the headline makes his answer seem definitive but when reading the actual quote from the advisor he sounded more unsure about his statement. Throughout the article there are mentions of the advisor being unsure of his answers, but the way the article is framed makes him and Biden painted in a very negative light. It seems one conversation was taken out of context and the way the questions were posed seemed liek leading questions that wanted a specific answer. There isn't anything that is particularly false information here, but it could be misleading and is most definitely very biased.

This is more than just troubling, for a number of reasons. First of all, the lack of reluctance in today's media viewership is a phenomenon in it of itself. People should always take everything with a grain of salt, especially given developments in A.I., but most are quick to accept what they see. Second of all, this video is clearly fake for a number of reasons. 1: how would it even be possible for Timberlake to have beer in a jail holding cell? 2: Although edited very well, making it seem believable, it still should be clear to the viewer with average competency that this is fake. His facial expressions and movements are quite awkward. The discourse surrounding this video and the lack of questioning currently unfolding in the media landscape is scary.