Previous Troubling Reports

The author barely uses quotes to support their information; there are only two throughout the whole article. Another concerning detail about the quotes--such as "double haters"--is that they are very short. Also, all of the other articles that are cited come from AP News's website.

The content of the article is accurate as they take information from Reuters study. However, the most concerning part is the title of the article. The Reuters report is about where Americans get their news from. Newsmax did have 8% watch rate amongst Americans. However, the article uses this number to claim that Newsmax is a top news brand and that this figure makes it one of the more reputable news sources.

The narrative surrounding Paulette Harlow's conviction to 2 years in prison is incorrect. Many believe she was being convicted for praying outside this clinic, when in reality she used physical force and obstruction to create a blockade at the clinic. Paulette is being charged for 2 felonies: taking part in the blockade of the Washington Surgi-Clinic and felony conspiracy against civil rights and violating the Freedom of Access to Clinic Entrances Act. This is concerning as many people are using this fake news to fuel their hatred towards the justice system and their belief of the unfair ruling against Donald Trump. While it is valid to be concerned about our current justice system, people must make sure the media they are reading is accurate.

This news isn't troubling so much as its just showing bias. It does seem correct and factual however it has a clear negative bias towards Trump and is very liberal. A selection bias is present here as there has been no fact-checking of Biden's rally but only Trump's.

This news is troubling to me largely because of the headline. The headline makes it seem as if Judge Judy is saying that Trump being prosecuted is nonsense, or that her specific opinion should show people that his conviction was invalid. Of course Judge Judy knows her stuff as an attorney/judge, she is not the foremost expert on this specific criminal topic and the article title makes it seem that her thought should hold great weight. The headline is also misleading because she does not say that the verdict itself was invalid, but more so that figuring out the crime was difficult. Ultimately, however, he was convicted by a jury of his peers so calling into question the legitimacy of the trial is misleading, especially to people who see that Judge Judy has commented this sort of thing about it.

This news is troubling to me largely because of the headline. The headline makes it seem as if Judge Judy is saying that Trump being prosecuted is nonsense, or that her specific opinion should show people that his conviction was invalid. Of course Judge Judy knows her stuff as an attorney/judge, she is not the foremost expert on this specific criminal topic and the article title makes it seem that her thought should hold great weight. The headline is also misleading because she does not say that the verdict itself was invalid, but more so that figuring out the crime was difficult. Ultimately, however, he was convicted by a jury of his peers so calling into question the legitimacy of the trial is misleading, especially to people who see that Judge Judy has commented this sort of thing about it.

While this news isn't necessarily directly "fake news," since it reports a real event that took place, this article nonetheless goes beyond the scope of what should be acceptable in news. Clearly an opinion piece, this article claims that retracting a single mask from an exhibit due to cultural concerns constitutes the title "Women Are Latest Victim of Identity Politics." Oxford removed a single piece from a museum. This event does not amount to the exaggerated claims made in the article. The author goes further, attacking academics for their character instead of actual claims or writings they've posted. This article is harmful to the spirit and good-faith of journalism.

While this news isn't necessarily directly "fake news," since it reports a real event that took place, this article nonetheless goes beyond the scope of what should be acceptable in news. Clearly an opinion piece, this article claims that retracting a single mask from an exhibit due to cultural concerns constitutes the title "Women Are Latest Victim of Identity Politics." Oxford removed a single piece from a museum. This event does not amount to the exaggerated claims made in the article. The author goes further, attacking academics for their character instead of actual claims or writings they've posted. This article is harmful to the spirit and good-faith of journalism.

The tone of this article is simply too snide to be unbiased; from the smug "It's been a bad week for border crisis deniers" to the selection of sources which paint illegal immigration as a crisis due to a sample size of a few crimes committed by members of what the article derisively terms a 'migrant crime wave', topped finally by the manifestly ridiculous quote "every crime committed by an illegal immigrant could have been prevented by enforcing our nation’s existing immigration laws.", this article drips with bias and cartoonish outrage,

I feel as though they are misrepresenting the actual support Trump has from LGBTQ voters. They suggest that there are about 10,000 LGBTQ Republicans across the country, suggesting that all of these voters would be casting their vote for Trump. There is no real proof that these voters are actually voting for Trump in the election as many people who identify as Republicans do not support Trump. The article says that they are hoping that 50% of LGBTQ voters will vote for Trump, this is essentially a baseless claim. Yes LGBTQ support went up slightly in 2020, but their overall percentage was still less than 30%. They provide no real evidence that any tactics Trump has used to try and capture these votes have had any material impact on actual voting.

This article from Breitbart seems to be very biased, even by looking at the title one can see that the use of "illegal alien" immediately gives a negative connotation regarding the defendant of the case to the reader. Throughout the article, the author continues to use inflammatory language concerning the defendant of the case. The focus of the article continued to enforce that the alleged gang affiliation of the defendant was central, when in fact the portion of the law that the Supreme Court was analyzing did not have anything to do with that affiliation. The main aspect of the case surrounded marriage in immigration law.

This article from Blaze Media seems to be extremely biased, and it favors Dave Rubin, an employee of the company producing the article. It also is biased against Chris Cuomo, the man who debates Rubin. One of the first red flags is the title, which immediately claims Cuomo was "destroyed" and dubs the U.S. Covid-19 response a failure. Then, just a few lines into the piece, the author asserts that Cuomo "often isn’t right, [but] at least he’s willing to talk about it" (Covid-19). The article concluded with a plug for Rubin's conservative talk show with Blaze Media, showing that the article was simply a promotion for a heavily right-leaning show.