Previous Troubling Reports

I found it concerning that the author was able to write an article about how unaffordable Obamacare is, but could not site any data to prove this assertion. But I think the most misleading thing about this is that Obamacare is extremely complex, healthcare inflation has been higher than the average rate of inflation for decades and The solution was not explained either. This kind of news offers no real factual information while at the same time confirming conservative bias which contributes to polarisation.

I found it concerning that the author was able to write an article about how unaffordable Obamacare is, but could not site any data to prove this assertion. But I think the most misleading thing about this is that Obamacare is extremely complex, healthcare inflation has been higher than the average rate of inflation for decades and The solution was not explained either. This kind of news offers no real factual information while at the same time confirming conservative bias which contributes to polarisation.

Social media spread the false report that tall black fences were surrounding and blocking access to the Supreme Court building when in reality this video was from 2022. These fences were put up when there was a leaked draft that signaled the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But, users are making it seem that this is current to try and spread the idea that they are preparing for chaos. However, the building does not have these blockades currently and are open at their regular public hours.

I find this troubling because the reporter clearly has an agenda which she is using this story to push. She does not take into consideration the facts that Lawmakers reiterate and this is somewhat misleading. It is true that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than native born citizens, yet this reporter does that acknowledge this fact. This could be very misleading to many veiwers who are not aware of this fact

The title itself initially caught my eye, although calling the protesters "anti-Israel" probably isn't much of a stretch. These protestors are opposed to Israel's government, after all. But the subhead made my bias radar ping. Fox News-- which already has a reputation for being quite biased-- called these protestors pro-Hamas. Obviously, someone can have a personal philosophy that links some opponents of Israel's government to the support of Hamas. At the end of the day, however, accusing an entire group of supporting a terrorist organization when they've said nothing to indicate this is simply wrong, and shows major bias. Fox News seems to be very against these protestors, making biased generalizations about them and offering no objectivity when it comes to their coverage. This issue alone indicates potential misinformation, and very clear right-wing bias that should be noted.

This article makes it seem certain that Biden will not be the 2024 Democratic nominee, even though that is not definite yet. It is misleading since it makes it seem that Biden has already stepped down.

I found this article to be misleading because it has conflated The Biden's investments in green energy with a concerted effort to destroy the oil and gas industry. An increase in investment in green energy is not synonymous with an effort to destroy the oil and gas industry. This is also misleading because it makes no mention about the War in Ukraine's impact on gas prices.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9. I don't there can be an honest discussion about oil prices, geopolitical security and the wellbeing of American families if this rightwing think tank ignores the War on Ukraines affect on oil prices and conflates a hand full of Biden policy plans that limit drilling to be the sole cause of the current gas prices.

I found this article to be misleading because it has conflated The Biden's investments in green energy with a concerted effort to destroy the oil and gas industry. An increase in investment in green energy is not synonymous with an effort to destroy the oil and gas industry. This is also misleading because it makes no mention about the War in Ukraine's impact on gas prices.https://www.nature.com/articles/s41599-023-02526-9. I don't there can be an honest discussion about oil prices, geopolitical security and the wellbeing of American families if this rightwing think tank ignores the War on Ukraines affect on oil prices and conflates a hand full of Biden policy plans that limit drilling to be the sole cause of the current gas prices.

While this article is not filled with fake news, it is rather misleading. The articles calls out CNN, specifically their two debate moderators Jake Tapper and Dana Bash, for not fact checking Donald Trump enough during the debate, suggesting that they failed viewers. I think this is misleading because Trump tends to tell more falsehoods than Biden and the two moderators fact checking him all evening would lead to discussions about him being censored or unfairly criticized. While fact checking is important, people largely look at those statistics after the debate unless they have heard something during that is verifiably false. Blaming the two CNN moderators for not fact checking him every time and suggesting that that does a disservice to voters is, in my opinion, a bit unfair and misleading.

It seems to be the common talking point that Biden performed poorly in the debate. Many articles have come out to say just that, and to interview people associated with him to confirm it. However, this piece is not marked as an opinion and the title raises eyebrows. Upon reading, you see lines like "Objectively, Biden produced the weakest performance since John F. Kennedy and Richard Nixon started the tradition of televised debates in 1960" with no citation or data to back the strong "objectively" claim. Later in the article, the author makes similar claims about Trump without any sort of sourcing or facts to back them up.

Even if I only saw the title and not the entire article, I would raise an eyebrow. The use of the word "oligarchy" and the phrase "decades-long kitchen cabinet" have clearly negative connotations and skewed against the Biden administration. The article explains how there's apparently an "oligarchy" of the president's family members and friends who influence and decide the president's decisions. It's also worth noting that the title "Behind the Curtains" seems overly sensational and meant to get people clicking rather than report news. What this article implies also seems to lend credence to age conspiratorial theories about an supposed shadow government or deep state that secretly rules the country. Such theories are hardly anything new, a glance at history will shine light upon such beliefs ranging from Queen Marie Antoinette being an Austrian spy to the many antisemitic conspiracies of a Jewish cabal. The promotion of such beliefs in the digital age where information is shared in an instant can have negative effects, as people online who may already flirt with such ideas may become fully swayed by biased pieces like this one. This can then lead to people questioning the legitimacy of a democratic mandate, and regardless of how you feel about the old man he was still elected democratically, same with Donald Trump. If people think that there's some shadow cabinet making decisions for the president, they loose faith in democratic institutions.

Even if I only saw the title and not the entire article, I would raise an eyebrow. The use of the word "oligarchy" and the phrase "decades-long kitchen cabinet" have clearly negative connotations and skewed against the Biden administration. The article explains how there's apparently an "oligarchy" of the president's family members and friends who influence and decide the president's decisions. It's also worth noting that the title "Behind the Curtains" seems overly sensational and meant to get people clicking rather than report news. What this article implies also seems to lend credence to age conspiratorial theories about an supposed shadow government or deep state that secretly rules the country. Such theories are hardly anything new, a glance at history will shine light upon such beliefs ranging from Queen Marie Antoinette being an Austrian spy to the many antisemitic conspiracies of a Jewish cabal. The promotion of such beliefs in the digital age where information is shared in an instant can have negative effects, as people online who may already flirt with such ideas may become fully swayed by biased pieces like this one. This can then lead to people questioning the legitimacy of a democratic mandate, and regardless of how you feel about the old man he was still elected democratically, same with Donald Trump. If people think that there's some shadow cabinet making decisions for the president, they loose faith in democratic institutions.