Previous Troubling Reports

The use of the word "regime" in the title of the article is already concerning. The word regime is often synonymous with the word government, however it's often used in a more negative connotation and is usually associated with authoritarianism. To use it to describe an American administration, regardless of the party in charge of it or the president at the helm, hints at a strong bias against it and can have the effect of influencing people to vilify the current administration or even equate them to more authoritarian rulers overseas. The rest of the article doesn't seem to be much better, as it appears that the author is trying to create a narrative of a liberal controlled corporate media versus a more honest independent conservative media. The article and its author biases are obvious and require no further explanation. What is of greater concern is the effect that a piece like this may have on readers. A reader with a more conservative leaning who may harbor disdain for the administration or feel that many media outlets are dishonest may be pulled further to the right if influenced by an article with this kind of language. Likewise, a more liberal reader may feel disgusted and see people who write this kind of material as an enemy or radical, and in turn be pulled further to the left. In any case, an article like this with its negative language only fosters more polarization and resentment among Americans rather than unity and patriotism.

This news is troubling to me because it does not give much context and is evidently very biased towards the left. The article claims that President Biden "saved our democracy". This statement should have had more information surrounding it.

The title of this article is misleading, as it implies that the Biden Administration enacted an order that would prevent all deportations of immigrants from that country. This description of the policy is not true, the policy only applies to certain regions of Haiti, under the guidelines that prevent deportations to war zones or extremely hazardous conditions. A reader glancing at this headline may receive a false impression of this policy's true nature and intent.

This article proves to be very conservative. It mentions that Democrats wanted to see Biden's path to victory but that he has fallen short. The author is outright biased when describing Biden's performance in the debate, describing it as a "disastrous debate performance" and saying that he has gone backward. By the tone of this article, it's clear that they're anti-Biden. It provides statistics about the polls showing Biden further behind and other stats saying that many think he is too old to serve as president.

This article has a very clear bias against the liberals. While this article is supposed to not have any bias, and be center, the author clearly has a bias. It talks about how the policies of the liberals are correct and that the republicans want to override them.

This article is extremely biased against the democrats and is extremely right leaning. This article clearly states how Biden is on the losing end of the presidential race. Thiis article does not just portray the details of the debate, but the article defenitely has a biased against the democratic party. The author also uses a bunch of agist words against Biden claiming he is too old to run as presidents.

At the end of the article, the author informs the reader that Biden stepping aside as the Democratic presidential nominee would bring the race into "uncharted territory." However, this is misinformation. It has occurred before when Lyndon B Johnson stepped down from the presidential race. It is ultimately misleading to imply that this sort of political occurrence is totally unprecedented.

This entire article frames the Trump re-election campaign as a nefarious one lurking around. Lines such as "Republicans are now plotting how to hit Harris" and a supposed quote from a Trump ally of "chaos is our friend" are neither sourced nor explained. On the other hand, it uses a lot of words like "Democratic panic" and "Trump's team is scrambling" without evidence that these two teams are not prepared.

This is troubling because it paints Trump extremely positively and Jack Smith extremely negatively. It does balance the two sides.

The fact that a news source for the university itself who held a rally for Donald Trump had to independently verify his claims during such is astounding. What's more troubling, however, is not the fact that they felt the need to do so, but the fact that this bipartisan, moderate news source discerned over 40 false claims made. It goes to show we must be more wary of the information fed to us.

This is a classic example of authors using loaded terms to prime their audience. One should be wary of any buzzwords like "lawfare" that don't really mean anything useful but are often used simply to poison the waters of decent discourse. Also, the article unhelpfully focuses on what the ruling means for Trump's personal situation instead of the worrying precedent this sets, demonstrating the author's bias.

I found it concerning that the author was able to write an article about how unaffordable Obamacare is, but could not site any data to prove this assertion. But I think the most misleading thing about this is that Obamacare is extremely complex, healthcare inflation has been higher than the average rate of inflation for decades and The solution was not explained either. This kind of news offers no real factual information while at the same time confirming conservative bias which contributes to polarisation.