Previous Troubling Reports

This is troubling due to the potential of these false claims to misinform the public, undermine trust in credible sources, be exploited for political gains, and distract from important issues. This article itself is very neutral and has no detectable traces of biased language. it reports the facts while providing evidence in neither a positive or negative tone, increasing the reliability of this scrutiny of social media.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The article has a bias in favor of Biden. The quotes from Healey and Wu--who are the only people quoted in the article--praise Biden's performance in his first presidential term. The article's reliability is also questionable, because it does not include quotes from anyone who dislikes Biden's presidency.

This is troubling because the headline presents the race as already decided even though a recount is going to happen. It also portrays Bob Good negatively, as a stubborn conservative leader.

The title itself demonstrates bias, since it portrays the Associated Press's failure to defend Biden as positive. The bias against Biden is also displayed when the author writes, "Were they even present for last Thursday night’s debate where Donald Trump wiped the floor with Joe Biden?...the publication peddled this masterpiece amid polls showing that three-fourths of the country think Biden is too old and frail to be president..." These statements are also not supported by direct evidence; after all, there are no quotes proving that Trump performed better than Biden at the debate, and none of the polls that are referred to in this passage are provided in the article.