Previous Troubling Reports

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC.What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

This opinion article on Fox News is discussing that Trump will rebuild the US economy and that democrats and Biden deserve none of the credit for that ecnomy when he becomes President again. This article is biased towards Trump and how he has and will handle the economy. The article is also very bias against democrats and the Biden administration along with anything that Biden and democrats tried to do against COVID-19 and the high inflation. Also, the data that showed that Obama had a good economy when he left office which Trump inheritied; however, the article states that the data is not true and Trump's actions made the ecnomy better. While there can be a difference of opinion on what will make and break an economy the obvious distain for democrats though is palpable through the article.

In general, the article does not have egregious misinformation issues, but one section that particularly stood out as problematic was the analysis of a quote from New York BLM leader Hawk Newsome in response to the not-guilty verdict for Daniel Penny. The article responded to Newsome's quote as if it was a fully direct call to violence for the black community, though it in reality is much more likely a rhetorical remark aimed at calling out what he and others believe to be hypocrisy and racism in the justice system. By not acknowledging this alternative perspective and jumping to portray Newsome and his supporters in a violent light, the author is expressing at least a minor form of bias against the BLM movement and their intentions.

In general, the article does not have egregious misinformation issues, but one section that particularly stood out as problematic was the analysis of a quote from New York BLM leader Hawk Newsome in response to the not-guilty verdict for Daniel Penny. The article responded to Newsome's quote as if it was a fully direct call to violence for the black community, though it in reality is much more likely a rhetorical remark aimed at calling out what he and others believe to be hypocrisy and racism in the justice system. By not acknowledging this alternative perspective and jumping to portray Newsome and his supporters in a violent light, the author is expressing at least a minor form of bias against the BLM movement and their intentions.

This article very sadly redirects the focus of the shooting of two kindergarteners to a politicians wording by attributing absent words to adhering to a woke agenda. The author presumes that the shooter targeted the school because it was christian and because he wanted to exact a vendetta against the us for its lack of action in the genocide of palestinians. The author then expresses disdain and accuses Newsom of not sympathizing with the victims because he did not use the same wording as with another victim of guns. The kind of tying loose threads in order to support an idea or simply cause disdain for a politician is quite polarising and very unproductive.

This piece from The Daily Beast while sprinkling facts about the choices for Trump's cabniet makes comments that makes it obvious the writer's distain for Trump and his choices. The article likens Trump's choices and the possible confirmation of them to letting a friend drive drunk or being surrounded by mad dogs. As well as telling democrats to not back down on the confirmation process. The article makes it obvious that they think Trump will have his choices confirmed because republicans do not want to rock the boat and fully support Trump. This piece also acts as confirmation bias for people who do not like Trump or the people he is picking instead of just focusing on the picks backgrounds and histories.

The article expresses concern over the paranoid style of politics in the U.S. and its potential impact on Europe. It emphasizes how divisive rhetoric can lead to real-world violence and societal instability, using examples like the Capitol riot. However, there are biases in the framing of Trump’s influence, particularly in attributing a singular cause to the political turmoil in the U.S., and the comparison between U.S. and European political situations may oversimplify the complexities of both regions. While the article is a legitimate critique of contemporary political climates, it could benefit from more balanced perspectives and a deeper exploration of counterarguments.

While the article accurately reports the firing of rockets into Israel by Hezbollah, the way it portrays this as one-sided aggression on the part of Hezbollah is inaccurate to the volatile situation on the ground. The fact is that, after the ceasefire went into effect, the IDF has launched attacks and airstrikes on Lebanese territory multiple terms well before the Hezbollah attacks. This seems pretty important to mention as context to the event, but this article leaves it out, in order to claim that Hezbollah has indisputably violated the ceasefire first, when the reality is murkier and more complicated than that. This article presents an incomplete view of the situation, creating a narrative that is biased and unreflective of the truth.