Previous Troubling Reports

This is troubling news for me for several reasons. First, it is worrying that Republicans are willing to halt government operations because they are unhappy with the verdict that was reached in Donald Trump's court case. Also, it is disturbing that his supporters are so quick to call into question the legitimacy of any institution that does not favor him. Blaming the White House/Biden administration when Trump was convicted by a jury of his peers is extremely concerning and shows that misinformation is being spread on the circumstances, and ultimately the outcome, of his trial.

From the title alone, it's clear the author is not a fan of Trump's trial. The author describes Trump as an elderly man with a failing memory, highlighting their negative view of him. This anti-Trump stance explains why the article portrays Trump's trial as a grave injustice and an abuse of the judicial process.

Headline is completely adverse to every other story I've read on the matter. While I have seen many articles talking about Israel grabbing land in the destroyed portions of the Gaza Strip, this was the first headline that caught my eye which said otherwise. This story chalks the whole story up to rumors which were started when an Israeli Real-Estate company put out ads for land which was within the Gaza Strip. This is the only article I've seen which has taken this approach, as there has been numerous articles claiming quite the opposite

This article is troubling to me due to the unnecessary attention brought to the suspect's immigration status. The source, Fox News, is conservative and intentionally emphasizes the fact he is an illegal immigrant in order to taint the reputation of immigrants and push forward an "us vs. them" narrative.

Right off the bat, this article is dripping with bias. The diction of the author is very conservative, and he's writing for an outlet that immediately gives readers a popup ad encouraging them to "fight back against the left." When the author says things like "With all due respect to West Virginians, if they fall for this, they deserve the representation they get" and "West Virginians should still never give him another vote," he's revealing where he stands on key issues. Clearly, he stands on the right side of the political spectrum. Biasly has also flagged this article and network both as extremely conservative.

From the title of Trump "spinning" the verdict to the way the article opens, it is designed to show how Trump and his team are intentionally twisting the verdict and undermining its legitimacy. Yet, the article seemingly does nothing to disprove any of these claims. It agrees with all the Trump claims that the judge voted for Biden, that Manhattan has an overwhelming Democrat majority, and that the DA has received funding from left-leaning sources. The catchy headline does not match the actual content of the article.

Despite the title of the article, the actual content emphasizes the idea that Trump will likely not face jail time. The author cites expert Norm Eisen and writes that the probability is around one in ten that he will be convicted. However, this does not consider the fact that he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Furthermore, this article only mentions that he might face up to four years of jail time for his crimes despite the fact that each falsified business record has the possibility of four years of jail time.

Despite the title of the article, the actual content emphasizes the idea that Trump will likely not face jail time. The author cites expert Norm Eisen and writes that the probability is around one in ten that he will be convicted. However, this does not consider the fact that he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Furthermore, this article only mentions that he might face up to four years of jail time for his crimes despite the fact that each falsified business record has the possibility of four years of jail time.

This is troubling because although it does not claim an abundance of claims rooted in personal sentiments or arguments from the author, it utilizes 'facts' and 'details' from other sources that are unequivocally incorrect or misconstrued. Former President Trump claimed that Biden aimed to kill him during the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate previously. However, the language Trump referenced is a standard policy statement used for issuing search warrants and was not unique to the FBI’s search of his property. It is actually meant to limit the use of deadly force. This article pulls quotes from a recently unsealed court filing without providing much context and clearly without elaborating on the truth of such claims.

There is an evident bias against Biden's campaign ad, and De Niro, who appears in this ad. This is indicated by how the title refers to De Niro's appearance in the ad as a "clown show". Also, while the author does well at quoting the ad, she only uses comments that speak negatively about the ad. Lastly, the editor's note states, "America won't survive another four years of a Democrat president. We must take back the White House." Here, the editor puts in their own views on who should be president.

There is a notable lack of information to support some of the article's statements. For example, the author writes, "...this campaign finance violation comes with a fine, not jail time. Most cases of this nature come with a slap on the wrist. When jail time was recommended in past cases, most were no more than a month." No outside evidence is given to verify the information about these consequences for campaign finance violations. Trump's trial is also portrayed negatively when the author states, "The trial focused on...which are charges seldom brought to trial because it’s not worth the hassle." This indicates that the trial is unnecessary, which is part of the author's own personal bias. Another display of the author's bias is when he writes, "While exoneration should be the verdict..." Here, he inserts his own opinion about what the result of the trial should be.

Overall, the information seems solid and logical. They present numbers to back up their claims. However, they still use extreme language to describe Biden and paint him and his choices in a very negative light. Using imagery and words like "immoral" and saying that his actions are the complete opposite of a the well known Robin Hood. All in all, these references and specific word choices lean the article towards biased, as even though numbers are inherently neutral, those numbers are surrounded by biased words and phrases.