Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This article heavily favors Trump and his plan to possibly get rid of personal income taxes and replace them with tariffs, therefore starting a "revolution" in new policy. The author paints this all in a very positive light, but fails to mention that most Americans do not pay any federal income taxes, and they would presumably fall under Trump’s tariff plan. Ultimately, this would be a huge tax increase on the lower and middle class in America - which the author fails to mention.

This post, like many mediums that use misinformation, heavily obscures fact and opinion. Most of the article is taken up with statements of fact: Twitter threads from Tyler Cherry, a new member of the Biden White House communications staff. It is true, Tyler Cherry is a controversial figure for his past radical posts about defunding ICE and that the Police are Slave patrols. This is undeniable: he has (in the past, according to his Twitter), held such beliefs. What makes this post misinformation is the declaration, "But on ideology? Cherry and Biden are a perfect match." This is just conjecture and can be disproven by researching Biden's border policies. Sure, they are less forthright than Trumps; however, recent news of his proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) which suspends illegal immigrants is hardly anti-ICE or anti-border. Again, depending on your interpretation of this post, it can be either seen as misinformation or simply a heated opinion piece. In my opinion, given that they equate Biden's policies with radical tweets on border policy, this news article is both misinformation and inflammatory.

This post, like many mediums that use misinformation, heavily obscures fact and opinion. Most of the article is taken up with statements of fact: Twitter threads from Tyler Cherry, a new member of the Biden White House communications staff. It is true, Tyler Cherry is a controversial figure for his past radical posts about defunding ICE and that the Police are Slave patrols. This is undeniable: he has (in the past, according to his Twitter), held such beliefs. What makes this post misinformation is the declaration, "But on ideology? Cherry and Biden are a perfect match." This is just conjecture and can be disproven by researching Biden's border policies. Sure, they are less forthright than Trumps; however, recent news of his proclamation under Immigration and Nationality Act sections 212(f) and 215(a) which suspends illegal immigrants is hardly anti-ICE or anti-border. Again, depending on your interpretation of this post, it can be either seen as misinformation or simply a heated opinion piece. In my opinion, given that they equate Biden's policies with radical tweets on border policy, this news article is both misinformation and inflammatory.

This is troubling for me as the title is already incredibly biased and making it easy for the reader to fall for such bias by capitalizing words and using quotes around strong phrases. It is very negative towards two particular politicians including one of the politicians included in the title, making it unbalanced. The sources aren't very diverse, only contributing more to the bias.There are fewer quotes included in the article, and the ones included are short which could be concerning.