Previous Troubling Reports

I read this article and was immidietly troubled by it. While the uathor initialy starts of in a a positive note where the author says that he no is talking about abortion itself because of the sensitivety and mixed feelings around the issue. However, in later passages, the author begins to say stuff such as killing a human being, no one wants to be a murderer etc. all of this is not an accurate portrayal of what abortion really is. There have been clear reports that say the fetus is not being till about 10-weeks. Furthurmore, this entire article has a right leaning bias.

This article expresses concerns that Democrats knew long beforehand about Biden's aging and covered it up. Thus, after Clooney's letter in which he suggested Biden step down, the author of this article said that Clooney was part of the problem of lying to the people. This article is troubling because it often takes speculation for a fact. For example, the author repeatedly refers to Biden's condition as a "secret" that Clooney was in on long before writing this article. However, there is no proof in this article that Clooney had any other reasons to believe Biden was unfit for office before watching Biden's behavior in recent weeks. Furthermore, the article uses very biased language, such as saying that "it never occurred to Clooney that he should tell the average American that there are animatronics at Chuck E. Cheese more lifelike than the leader of their nation," because he was trying to cover it up himself.

This article is technically correct; people who had been associated with President Trump did contribute to the Project 2025 ideation and drafting. However, what is not made clear to the reader is that many of these people were not recently working for Trump, and had not been working for him during the final drafting of Project 2025. This article sets out to make Trump seem to be lying about his involvement in Project 2025 and seems to suggest he has a bigger role. With the facts we know now, we can not say that is true.

Many sources on X and on news aggregators across the web were perpetually spreading the claim that CNN imposed a delay on their broadcasting of the first presidential debate in order to edit parts if needed. The delay was said to be one-two minutes long. However, this claim has been disproved by a plethora of sources and is evidently false. With the original post receiving over 7,000 likes on X, and even more having viewed the claim via circulation across media platforms, it is troubling how quickly Americans tend to believe either what they want to believe or what any old source tells them is true.

This article is troubling because it is extremely biased and does not adhere to specific facts. The author makes their negative stance on Trump clearly known, and simultaneously seeks to undermine President Biden. A particularly subjective quote about Biden reads: “And so there was a distinct cruelty to it all, the spectacle of a man of eighty-one, struggling terribly with memory, syntax, nerves, and fragility, his visage slack with the dawning sense that his mind was letting him down and that, as a result, he was letting the country down.” Remnick continues, “This was an event that, if unremedied, could bring the country closer to another Trump Presidency and with it a diminishment of liberal democracy.” Regardless of one’s opinion on either man, the article is problematic because of its complete lack of factual evidence. The argument for Biden’s competency, or even Trump’s, should be supported by outside facts.

This article suggests that Rep. Ted Lieu called on President Biden to step down, which is blatantly false. Lieu has refuted the claim and it's been proven to be untrue, with the Wall Street Journal editing it out of their original article.

This article suggests that Rep. Ted Lieu called on President Biden to step down, which is blatantly false. Lieu has refuted the claim and it's been proven to be untrue, with the Wall Street Journal editing it out of their original article.

This article is troubling for showing clear bias against Biden's performance in the debate and providing multiple uncited sources throughout the story. The author displays a clear desire to see Biden resign from the presidential race rather than soley focusing on their sources' opinions. Additionally, many of these sources remain unamed, putting the credibility of the story into question. Lastly, the author also displays bias against sources who countered the author's perspective.

This article is troubling because it has a provocative headline that would draw in people that do not like Trump, but is a bit heavy to read and fails to regard some of the intricacies in this SCOTUS ruling. Given the magnitude of this decision, it is important that people can pretty easily understand what has happened and what is at the heart of this case. Ultimately, the article is troubling because it discusses a very heavy topic, uses an article that draws in readers, but is a bit complicated to read and doesn't provide full context on the topic.

This is troubling due to the potential of these false claims to misinform the public, undermine trust in credible sources, be exploited for political gains, and distract from important issues. This article itself is very neutral and has no detectable traces of biased language. it reports the facts while providing evidence in neither a positive or negative tone, increasing the reliability of this scrutiny of social media.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.