Previous Troubling Reports

This article is troubling because it argues that Biden cheated to win the 2020 election against Trump. This is a case of election denial, and it has been debunked by almost all major news outlets.

This article seeks to describe a “new” image of Donald Trump being put forward at the Republican National Convention in Milkwaukee. While it includes quotes from several of Trump’s family members and associates, it paints him in a negative light. The bias is very clear against him and his policies (expressed in the title alone). For example, author Adam Nagourney writes: “The gap between the reality of Mr. Trump and the portrait painted at his nominating convention may prove to be too vast for any Republican makeover.” Nagourney takes a rather subjective stance throughout this piece, which makes it difficult for readers to form unbiased opinions. If the author had omitted personal statements and beliefs, the report would be more reliable.

Although somewhat true, the article title and its contents tend to take a quote out of context and misconstrue its meaning. An MSNBC host said that Biden recovering from COVID presents himself as overcoming a challenge and allows him an opportunity to show strength, similar to how Trump has so far handled himself after an assassination attempt on him. However, the way the article words things and orders quotes makes the MSNBC host seem very partisan, almost to say she suggested that COVID is worse than a bullet. However, she never claims this, nor does she really downplay the assassination attempt.

While this is indeed an opinion article, there is no semblance of respect. From the title to even the wording, this article simply flat out bashed the left without providing any evidence to back up the claims.

The article does well at including both sides of the issue, by quoting and paraphrasing words from both those in favor of Trump's choice of Vance as vice president, and those against it. However, some parts place the Biden-Harris campaign and Democrats in a negative frame. For example, the author writes, "The Biden-Harris campaign wasted no time attacking Vance, despite Biden’s Sunday evening call on Americans to 'lower the temperature' after Trump was wounded in a Saturday afternoon assassination attempt." Another section states, "The selection of Vance kicked the Democratic opposition research teams into gear...opposition research teams will have an opportunity to try to spook the public on Vance..."

For starters, this article continuously raises questions about how a 20-year-old gunman was able to get on the roof of a building so close to the rally. They portray Trump's administration negatively as if they were unprepared or careless with security. The author clearly has a liberal stance on the issue, as it is made clear throughout the article that the Secret Service warned Trump that these types of gatherings were dangerous, especially in light of recent threats.

The article is troubling because it uses highly charged, partisan language and lacks balance by failing to present counterarguments from Trump’s opponents. It speculates without concrete evidence, suggesting anti-Trump rhetoric directly led to the assassination attempt, and places significant blame on Trump’s political enemies for creating a hostile environment. The piece includes inflammatory statements that deepen political divisions, discredits the Democratic Party and media without fair analysis, and relies on emotional appeals rather than logical arguments, manipulating readers' opinions.

Using a word such as "spars" is aggressive and misleading. This story paints Donald Trump Jr. out as rude and antagonistic, lacking objectivity.

This article is quick to point out the fact that Crooks allegedly donated to ActBlue, which supports democrats, while barely mentioning his republican political affiliation. This indicates that the author wants to push an agenda, and articulates the information in a specific way in order to do so.

I think from the title alone this news is troubling as the reader is now facing extreme bias from the first line they read due to the name calling and partisan divide this article is creating. Further the entire article goes on to criticize and blame one party and makes very unequal and troubling comparisons throughout the article. It is so biased that there is no attempt at all to understand the other side's perspective or offer a counterargument. Further, the article jumps to conclusions without showing how they got there and is making assumptions with large gaps which is scary to read especially when the article is discussing death as one of the conclusions.

Although the article is short, it is filled with displays of bias against Biden's debate performance, including the headline. Facts are presented in the story, such as details about Biden's upcoming news conference, but everything else is largely the author's opinion. There are almost no sources to back up the author's claims, so the author is doing less reporting and more opinion-writing.

This article talks about the shooting at the Trump rally where a sniper shot Trump's right ear. As it notes what happened, the author mentions how Trump's security was lacking and how it is strange that somebody could obtain roof access close to a rally. It was also noted that the sniper was seen before the rally outside with a gun, and people thought he was suspicious, but nothing happened.