Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This article is concerned not with displaying facts but instead with generalizing the entire LGBTQ group and equating the political atmosphere of 2024 with shame. The author simply ignores the diversity of composition and opinions in the group in his analysis. This is a bad-faith article written to strengthen confirmation bias. "Somehow, despite Hamas’ paper trail of anti-gay violence and anti-gay laws throughout the West Bank and Gaza, myriad queer groups have backed the Palestinian cause over Israel." The author knows these people's motivation for supporting such causes and instead presents the language "somehow" to tear down both LGBTQ people and to legitimize violence in Gaza. "But as marches and parades pour through London, New York and San Francisco this weekend, shame is actually the best sentiment that describes our community right now." This is a value-judgement from the author. This view is not held by everyone.

This news article is troubling because there is an evident bias for the overturning of the Chevron decision. The article emphasizes that the government agencies previously tasked with regulating laws were underqualified and unreliable. The article also claims that this new ruling keeps our government together, as the ruling that happened 40 years ago tore our government apart. This article was extremely biased and neglected to state the full facts of the ruling.

The title alone indicates that this article is not in favor of Biden. The article mentions how foreign diplomats were horrified by Biden's performance and then described it as "Biden's debate flop." Throughout this article, it mentions the lousy perception of Biden and what the Democratic party might do as a backup plan. There was mention of Trump and his performance, but nothing directly attacked his character.

The reason I selected this piece, and chose to report it as troublesome is because the author does not provide counterfactual evidence against the claims they are calling "absurd." The author does not provide sources for the figures that they include in the piece. As a reader I am not convinced that the author took steps to provide me with accurate reporting given these two criticisms.

This news is troubling for two reasons: The article cherry picks golf clips from both candidates, as if it was a fair comparison. This is not how competition works (although one's golf skills should not be an indicator of readiness for office). The other reason is that this childish debate is being picked up by OANN in order to punish one candidate and reward another for their supposed golf skills. These should not be requisite skills for office, and OANN latching onto such topics is harmful for the presidential race. Other points from the debate, like each candidate's mental strength, are much more pertinent details than golf skills.

While the title of the article suggests that the Russian government has made comments regarding the most recent presidential debate, that is not correct. The article presents statements from the Russian government saying they are not concerned with the United States domestic issues enough to focus on the debate. The article then discussed how two Russian media agencies asked an American psychiatrist to dissect the debate. At no point did any negative comments regarding Biden's performance in the debate, it was only that of the psychiatrist. The article's title seemed to suggest Russia had a documented opinion and was confident in Biden's failure.