Previous Troubling Reports

This article exhibits a clear liberal bias in both framing and soucing. The central narrative is built around anonymous Natinal Guard members who critcize President Trump's dployments, but their claims come primarily from an encrypted group chat that cannot be indenpendently verified. Becasue the key testimony is anonymous and linked to a military unit, which is unverifiable and filtered through a secure messaging app, the factual foundation of the piiece is weakeneed and pushes the article towards opinion-driven storytelling rather than strictly verfiable reporting. The structure of the article further reinforces this tilt. Emotionally charged quotes from so-called Guard members dominate the narrative, streesing that deployment are "not what we signed up for," "so disheartening," and comparable to "fearmongering." These statemens are given extensive space and contextual sympathy, Be contrast, the Pentagon and White House responses are relativelly breif, appear later in the article, and are not explored with the same depth, The feel more like obligatory insertions than equal, competing prespectives. Word choice and issue framing also leaning against the administration. The repeated focus on questioning dployments, alleged departures from "normal operations" and "doctrine", and fears about national patrols all encourage the reader to view President Trump's decisions as abnormal and dangerous. While the outlet maintains s surface layer of factual reporting, the heavy reliance on above factors shows a moderately- liberal bias.

This article exhibits a clear liberal bias in both framing and soucing. The central narrative is built around anonymous Natinal Guard members who critcize President Trump's dployments, but their claims come primarily from an encrypted group chat that cannot be indenpendently verified. Becasue the key testimony is anonymous and linked to a military unit, which is unverifiable and filtered through a secure messaging app, the factual foundation of the piiece is weakeneed and pushes the article towards opinion-driven storytelling rather than strictly verfiable reporting. The structure of the article further reinforces this tilt. Emotionally charged quotes from so-called Guard members dominate the narrative, streesing that deployment are "not what we signed up for," "so disheartening," and comparable to "fearmongering." These statemens are given extensive space and contextual sympathy, Be contrast, the Pentagon and White House responses are relativelly breif, appear later in the article, and are not explored with the same depth, The feel more like obligatory insertions than equal, competing prespectives. Word choice and issue framing also leaning against the administration. The repeated focus on questioning dployments, alleged departures from "normal operations" and "doctrine", and fears about national patrols all encourage the reader to view President Trump's decisions as abnormal and dangerous. While the outlet maintains s surface layer of factual reporting, the heavy reliance on above factors shows a moderately- liberal bias.

This article exhibits a clear liberal bias in both framing and soucing. The central narrative is built around anonymous Natinal Guard members who critcize President Trump's dployments, but their claims come primarily from an encrypted group chat that cannot be indenpendently verified. Becasue the key testimony is anonymous and linked to a military unit, which is unverifiable and filtered through a secure messaging app, the factual foundation of the piiece is weakeneed and pushes the article towards opinion-driven storytelling rather than strictly verfiable reporting. The structure of the article further reinforces this tilt. Emotionally charged quotes from so-called Guard members dominate the narrative, streesing that deployment are "not what we signed up for," "so disheartening," and comparable to "fearmongering." These statemens are given extensive space and contextual sympathy, Be contrast, the Pentagon and White House responses are relativelly breif, appear later in the article, and are not explored with the same depth, The feel more like obligatory insertions than equal, competing prespectives. Word choice and issue framing also leaning against the administration. The repeated focus on questioning dployments, alleged departures from "normal operations" and "doctrine", and fears about national patrols all encourage the reader to view President Trump's decisions as abnormal and dangerous. While the outlet maintains s surface layer of factual reporting, the heavy reliance on above factors shows a moderately- liberal bias.

This article exhibits a clear liberal bias in both framing and soucing. The central narrative is built around anonymous Natinal Guard members who critcize President Trump's dployments, but their claims come primarily from an encrypted group chat that cannot be indenpendently verified. Becasue the key testimony is anonymous and linked to a military unit, which is unverifiable and filtered through a secure messaging app, the factual foundation of the piiece is weakeneed and pushes the article towards opinion-driven storytelling rather than strictly verfiable reporting. The structure of the article further reinforces this tilt. Emotionally charged quotes from so-called Guard members dominate the narrative, streesing that deployment are "not what we signed up for," "so disheartening," and comparable to "fearmongering." These statemens are given extensive space and contextual sympathy, Be contrast, the Pentagon and White House responses are relativelly breif, appear later in the article, and are not explored with the same depth, The feel more like obligatory insertions than equal, competing prespectives. Word choice and issue framing also leaning against the administration. The repeated focus on questioning dployments, alleged departures from "normal operations" and "doctrine", and fears about national patrols all encourage the reader to view President Trump's decisions as abnormal and dangerous. While the outlet maintains s surface layer of factual reporting, the heavy reliance on above factors shows a moderately- liberal bias.

This article exhibits a clear liberal bias in both framing and soucing. The central narrative is built around anonymous Natinal Guard members who critcize President Trump's dployments, but their claims come primarily from an encrypted group chat that cannot be indenpendently verified. Becasue the key testimony is anonymous and linked to a military unit, which is unverifiable and filtered through a secure messaging app, the factual foundation of the piiece is weakeneed and pushes the article towards opinion-driven storytelling rather than strictly verfiable reporting. The structure of the article further reinforces this tilt. Emotionally charged quotes from so-called Guard members dominate the narrative, streesing that deployment are "not what we signed up for," "so disheartening," and comparable to "fearmongering." These statemens are given extensive space and contextual sympathy, Be contrast, the Pentagon and White House responses are relativelly breif, appear later in the article, and are not explored with the same depth, The feel more like obligatory insertions than equal, competing prespectives. Word choice and issue framing also leaning against the administration. The repeated focus on questioning dployments, alleged departures from "normal operations" and "doctrine", and fears about national patrols all encourage the reader to view President Trump's decisions as abnormal and dangerous. While the outlet maintains s surface layer of factual reporting, the heavy reliance on above factors shows a moderately- liberal bias.

I found the headline of this article to be misleading, as the article characterizes a few of the Democratic candidates in the recent elections as extremists, while also criticizing the backgrounds of previous Democratic leaders. While I understand the criticisms of the background of various Democratic politicians, I think it is somewhat hyperbolic to call them violent extremists. Furthermore, the headline insinuates that violent extremists are what Democrats want; I find this to be an over-exaggerated mischaracterization.

I found the headline of this article to be misleading, as the article characterizes a few of the Democratic candidates in the recent elections as extremists, while also criticizing the backgrounds of previous Democratic leaders. While I understand the criticisms of the background of various Democratic politicians, I think it is somewhat hyperbolic to call them violent extremists. Furthermore, the headline insinuates that violent extremists are what Democrats want; I find this to be an over-exaggerated mischaracterization.

This is troubling for me because of the heavy amount of opinion within the article. MSNBC is known for having a heavy left-leaning bias, and this article is a perfect example of that. While there may be no actual instances of misinformation, it is the amount of opinion within the article that I find worrying. The title itself signals a clear alignment with the left, and already pushes the audience into thinking a certain way, even before reading the article itself. Within the articles there are quotes such as "the Trump administration is seeking to maximize the suffering of low-income Americans", which are very harsh accusations. The MSNBC writers may believe that this is correct, but these statements are ones that the public may take as truth, not realizing that there are other perspectives to be heard.

The article itself does not have any misinformation or fake news but Trump's idea of sending checks to everyone thanks to his tariff policies is likely not going to happen. As the article explained, he would need congress's approval and he is most likely not getting that as they are very divided at the moment. Therefore, people reading these news would likely just go off what he claims he is going to do and now what he is actually able to do.

This MSNBC article is troubling because of its strong liberal bias. It bashes President Donald Trump's reaction to a man fainting during a recent Oval Office meeting. The author claims the image of Trump looking forward with the man on the ground behind him is representative of his ignoring of the needs of the American people in light of the government shutdown. A quote says, "Trump’s reaction to the situation was emblematic of a much larger issue within his administration: the tendency to turn its back on those in need." This clearly shows the author's liberal bias and makes it unreliable, troubling news.

This article tries to paint the Mexican president as a bad politician for saying that she will not use the power of the government to kill citizens.

This article may not be "fake news" per se, but it is certainly biased. It uses a lot of charged language such "hungry families" and characterizing the Trump admin's moves as chaotic.