Previous Troubling Reports

This news is troubling, as it shows a heavy bias against the left. The article continuously reiterates the idea that Democrats are lying to the people and only appeal to the voters for their benefit. Much of the language in this article is very biased and is conveyed as facts.

This article offers a facade that it is somewhat neutral by way of the author seemingly agreeing with the White House at time regarding "cheapfakes", aka altered videos or images of Biden that are aimed to misconstrue what occurred. Nevertheless, the utter bias of the author wholeheartedly comes through, where he slams Biden for his incompetencies or states that even though the video may be altered, Biden clearly is doing something wrong one way or another. Regardless of any factual information regarding Biden's health, the article promotes misinformation documents as legitimate.

This article speaks too firmly that Biden's deal will go through and promise citizenship to half a million immigrants. They make it unclear how they calculated half a million immigrants, and if that would even be feasible under the new plan.

This news article exhibits a strong liberal bias and this is clearly shown through the use of the word 'touts' in the title which has negative connotations. The author seems to be condemning the White House for opposing Biden's efforts to protect the unprotected. Throughout the article there is also nothing but praise for Biden and his new policy.

This article is biased right from the first headline by using this quote as a hook: 'Wow…Democrats are truly panicked,' . This is clearly biased against Democrats. It uses a lot of sarcasm and exaggeration which make it even more unreliable. It feels like this article wants to negatively target and slam politicians and figures of the opposing party rather than actually report on the story.

This article weaponizes facts to misconstrue the truth. Essentially, they use one poll source and exaggerate, claiming that a loss in Iowa would spell doom on the Biden campaign. True, Trump's conviction has emboldened Iowa voters to choose him over Biden. However, does the Iowa campaign spell disaster for Biden's entire campaign? Not entirely. The rhetoric used here is misleading for a purpose-to get more clicks and more attention, instead of reporting the truth unadulterated.

This article weaponizes facts to misconstrue the truth. Essentially, they use one poll source and exaggerate, claiming that a loss in Iowa would spell doom on the Biden campaign. True, Trump's conviction has emboldened Iowa voters to choose him over Biden. However, does the Iowa campaign spell disaster for Biden's entire campaign? Not entirely. The rhetoric used here is misleading for a purpose-to get more clicks and more attention, instead of reporting the truth unadulterated.

The article in the Daily Mail claims that President Joe Biden mistakenly tried to sit down in a chair that wasn't there - attributing the mistake to his old age. However, the video evidence for this claim is doctored to make this seem like it happened when it did not. The article aims to show that Biden is confused in his old age, hinting that he is unfit for the job of president. However, the basis for this claim is false.

The article aims to take Trump's quote out of context. Although he did say that the city of Milwaukee was "horrible", he was talking about its supposed crime rates. It has become headline news because the city will host the Republican National Convention. The article said that Republicans have conflicted understandings of what Trump meant. The article tries to show division amongst Republicans and portray them as always being conflicted on issues.

Author of the article continuously uses derogatory terms and makes false claims. - Example: "As a consequence of these changes, ..., every public school and college in the U.S. must allow male transvestites into women's locker rooms and restrooms". Here the author uses 'transvestites' to refer to trans people, reducing the whole issue to only clothes and restrooms. Author also implies that supporting trans women is an attack on feminism... which is not. Author makes it seem as if by supporting trans women you are allowing biological males to prey on women's rights which is also not the case. All in all, author tries to justify anti-trans sentiments by dressing them up as "protecting real women".

Article uses pro-Palestine and anti-Israel as if they were synonyms which I find troubling as it is equating supporting Palestine to antisemitism. I think this overlap is true for some groups, but not all. As it often happens in these type of situations, there are groups of peaceful demonstrators willing to discuss issues and negotiate, as well as violent groups always looking for a reason to justify violent acts. This article puts all of them together in the same boat.

This is obviously trying to demean President Biden for a relatively unimportant event in order to garner dissatisfaction at the current office.