Previous Troubling Reports

I think this article is very skewed to the right. The evidence backing their claims is limited, and per usual the article has little to backup the title. It is clear that the article simply aims to slander any Democrat who goes against the Conservative agenda of banning TikTok, an app that happens to be a large output for political expression.

From the title alone, you can clearly see that the article will be against Biden. The bias becomes even more clear when you begin to dissect the text. Firstly, Marlow accuses Biden of intentionally allowing immigrants into the country. There is no evidence provided by the author to back up this claim. Marlow writes that Biden is doing this so that he can gain more voters. Despite his claims, there is no solid evidence provided to support the assertion that there is widespread voting amongst illegals. The article on Breitbart provides no factual examples or situations where illegal immigrants actually voted. The article is plagued with the author's personal conspiracies. It is essentially a hit piece that is meant to make Biden look bad. Marlow wants readers to believe that their votes are being diluted and that America's elections are rigged.

There were a number of disproven statements in this segment which are still being circulated. One that the Biden's have evidence against them that shows corruption. two national security is not under threat from border security( you could argue that the security of the border is under threat but not the nation as a whole). The border issue is being overstated in terms of a threat to the security of the nation. She also states climate change is not a threat to the Untied States, but climate change is already causing billions in damages, and that number will increase with time.

There were a number of disproven statements in this segment which are still being circulated. One that the Biden's have evidence against them that shows corruption. two national security is not under threat from border security( you could argue that the security of the border is under threat but not the nation as a whole). The border issue is being overstated in terms of a threat to the security of the nation. She also states climate change is not a threat to the Untied States, but climate change is already causing billions in damages, and that number will increase with time.

This article overstates the stability of Afghanistan prior to the US withdrawal, making it somewhat misleading. This article also pins the withdrawal on president Biden, but this foreign policy objective had been in the works spanning multiple presidencies. This puts alot of emphasis on the president which is good for the news, but in reality most foreign policy objectives span past a single administration. The author also makes the claim that the US is showing weakness and then gives no real data to back this claim. This article is misleading because it is overly simplistic.

This article overstates the stability of Afghanistan prior to the US withdrawal, making it somewhat misleading. This article also pins the withdrawal on president Biden, but this foreign policy objective had been in the works spanning multiple presidencies. This puts alot of emphasis on the president which is good for the news, but in reality most foreign policy objectives span past a single administration. The author also makes the claim that the US is showing weakness and then gives no real data to back this claim. This article is misleading because it is overly simplistic.

Despite not being a fan of Trump's, this article is clearly biased against him and spreads false information. In the title, the author claims that Trump predicts a blood bath in case of losing, in relation to migrants. However, that passage was taken completely out of context. In fact, Trump meant a blood bath in the car manufacturing industry; not society, or much less for the migrants. This is a clear example of disinformation — the author uses his own political biases and omits information in order to push forward a political agenda. The agenda, in this case, being Donald Trump's authoritarian and aggressive tendencies.

Despite not being a fan of Trump's, this article is clearly biased against him and spreads false information. In the title, the author claims that Trump predicts a blood bath in case of losing, in relation to migrants. However, that passage was taken completely out of context. In fact, Trump meant a blood bath in the car manufacturing industry; not society, or much less for the migrants. This is a clear example of disinformation — the author uses his own political biases and omits information in order to push forward a political agenda. The agenda, in this case, being Donald Trump's authoritarian and aggressive tendencies.

The article mentions that MSNBC does not air some of Trump's speeches or that they cut the transmission off. The author points out that these decisions relate to the network's refusal to be "knowingly broadcasting untrue things." The author seems upset by this, mentioning that "rebuttal couldn’t have waited a couple of minutes?" and that "if you’re going to cover Trump around the clock, let him have his say". In other words, the fact that Trump spreads false information is not important or alarming to the author when misinformation in news outlets is a very serious issue, specially around elections season.

There are several reason this article is inaccurate and misleading. For one the author makes the argument that AOC is misusing the word genocide, while herself never identifying it. Second She refers to the War in Ukraine as a genocide, when it has not been classified as such. Third the author never quote AOC or describe specifically what context AOC uses the word genocide. these three observations about the article demonstrate the lack of quality and clarity the author brings fourth, and is therefore very likely to be misleading. The author also uses fake facts to prove her argument

The author cites an extremely right-wing biased news source as evidence of the so-called conspiracy plot to keep Donald Trump from winning the presidency in November. The article contains rhetoric that harshly criticizes Republicans who don't agree with everything on the presumptive GOP nominee such as "RINO Republicans." It similarly portrays Democrats negatively and on the side of the conspiracy.

I dislike the structure of this article, framing the news in a divisive manner for such a small occurance. The one-worded quotes, again, are unprofessional,