Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This is troubling news because it is written by someone who is so clearly anti-Trump, and it is evident in this piece. Just from the title alone, the word tout is used with a negative connotation. Additionally, he puts the words tremendous unity in quotation marks, indicating that the author doesn't believe it was as extraordinary as Trump did. The article also mentions that this was the first time Trump has visited Capitol Hill since a pro-Trump mob raided it. Although it might not seem outright concerning, it is not a bright story to be mentioned when it is such a small article, and it doesn't have to do with Trump's meeting.

This entire article is a one-sided attack on Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge. It conveniently ignores the fact that amici are present in many high-profile cases and that Biden-appointed judges have tackled Biden cases. More importantly, the snarky title of "of course she is" compromises trust in judicial systems and integrity. It undermines justice and the presumption of innocence.

This article constantly uses language that could potentially give the wrong idea to people. it shows a clear bias to one side and can be a set for anyone looking for confirmation bias.

I found this article to be extremely pro-republican. While the article is not completey anti-abortion, the article definitely supporting the republican policies. Words like presumptive republican leader, makes the readers have a right leaning bias.

There are a number of word choices in the article that seem quite incendiary that show bias from the author. Towards the beginning of the article for example, they use the phrase "attempted coup" to describe the Capitol riot of January 6th. Other word choices include the use of "deranged" and "nonsensical" to describe arguments made by Donald Trump's lawyers, and the use of the phrase "sloppy originalism" to describe how Justice Clearance Thomas interprets the Constitution. The use of this kind of phrasing is concerning, as it only deepens the polarization already felt in modern American politics and does not help bridge that gap. And even though this article is label as an opinion piece, the Daily Beast is supposed to be a news website that simply reports news, not rhetoric.

There are a number of word choices in the article that seem quite incendiary that show bias from the author. Towards the beginning of the article for example, they use the phrase "attempted coup" to describe the Capitol riot of January 6th. Other word choices include the use of "deranged" and "nonsensical" to describe arguments made by Donald Trump's lawyers, and the use of the phrase "sloppy originalism" to describe how Justice Clearance Thomas interprets the Constitution. The use of this kind of phrasing is concerning, as it only deepens the polarization already felt in modern American politics and does not help bridge that gap. And even though this article is label as an opinion piece, the Daily Beast is supposed to be a news website that simply reports news, not rhetoric.

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.