Previous Troubling Reports

Since Halloween was yesterday, here's something sort of funny and not election related for once - misinformation was spread on a website called myspirithalloween.com, which claimed that there was a Halloween Parade taking place in Dublin, Ireland. This was in fact false, but the claim managed to dupe thousands of people into packing the streets, expecting a celebration that was not going to happen. The site claims to be based in Illinois, but all evidence collected point to the people or person behind it being based in Pakistan. This is worrying just because it's a site created to generate advertising revenue and create fake social media posts, AI-generated text, etc. Kind of insane how well these things can work sometimes.

The article starts off quickly with being troubling in the title as it likens Harris to a toddler. Also, that what Vance says about it was brilliant. This shows the article's bias from the get go as right-leaning. The article's first opening lines do the same of showing bias with saying Harris lies a lot which makes it hard to understand her policies. The article talks multiple times about her apparent lying and tries to make cases for it as well. This article does not even try to hide it's bias which is why it is troubling news.

The article appears to show bias against Trump, emphasizing the negative aspects of Trump’s Madison Square Garden rally. It describes the event as "violent and vulgar," with "divisive remarks," and highlights off-color jokes and racist statements made by speakers, implying a chaotic lack of message control. The article underscores the disapproval from Trump’s allies, referencing them as "deeply concerned" and includes quotes criticizing the offensive content. While it notes Trump’s distancing from some remarks, it does not balance this with details on any positive responses from attendees. Additionally, the piece gives weight to Democratic reactions, such as Bad Bunny’s support for Harris, suggesting an imbalance in perspective.

This article is drenched in right-wing conspiracy thinking, phrases like "Kamala Harris and her New World Order handlers" speaking for themselves. Needless to say, opposing perspectives are not shown at all, and these assertions are made with no supporting evidence in the article. It's to be expected, since this article is not trying to hide its bias in the slightest, and does not attempt to provide a balanced view. It 100% backs partisan, very conservative ads, and calls them truths without evidence. It's misinformation, short and simple.

This article is very biased, and only shows a single perspective, with an extreme anti-immigration position. The article takes the opinion of one political strategist, that pro-immigration policies have negatively impacted Democrats as complete fact, does a lot of editorializing around it assuming that it is completely true, and then uses it as a segway into criticizing Harris. That the author phrases like "woke agenda" is proof of right-wing bias. The article also fails to offer opposing perspectives in good-faith, or examine those arguments for any merit. It's a one-sided article that tries to portray an opinion as a fact, couched in strong anti-immigrant sentiment.

The article’s tone shows potential bias, especially in its portrayal of Trump. Phrases like "double down on his demeaning outlook" and "ripping on the U.S. city" imply a negative view of Trump’s remarks on Detroit, shaping readers’ perceptions. While it covers Trump’s rally and critical comments in detail, it provides minimal information on Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama’s rally, which creates an imbalanced focus. Additionally, statements like "which is simply untrue" regarding Trump’s comparison of Detroit to Chinese cities could seem opinionated without supporting context, further contributing to a slant against him.

I find this news troubling because it raises concerns all raises concern about the potential for increased polarization and division within the country. We are all aware the popular vote is not the deciding factor for an election we saw in the 2016 election. From the headline, CNN is inciting that Trump is more likely to win the election, giving his supporters a false sense of hope and voters a sense of uneasiness.

This news article is troubling to me because it only covers the Democrats leaving the party. This feels like a one-sided as it does not cover at all how many Republicans are leaving the party. This makes the article right-leaning as it is doing it best to show that Democrats are leaving the party in droves especially with the title seeiing 103% rise leaving. The article is accurate in its telling of the ammount of Democrat voters switching but also makes it seem like Harris might be the reason for it with the sentence that Harris's strategy is making them flee. This article could have been more unbiaseed with discussing the total percentages for both of the major parties instead of focusing on one.

This is troubling news for me because it's just another example of how easy it is to fake information on the internet and spread it. Specifically, it's another example of someone trying to sew distrust in the government and our election by faking information. With videos, it's harder to distinguish whether or not something is real, which makes it more likely that people will more readily believe it even if it isn't true. I'm glad people are trying to crack down on this misinformation and push back, but it still spreads to incredibly fast it's hard to try to control it all.

The title alone is what drew me to this article. It boldly uses the term "death cult" to mislead people into thinking the fossil fuel industry is deliberately harmful. While the industry does contribute significantly to climate change, it may oversimplify and exaggerate the industry claiming it disregards human life. Another issue I found with this article is the article's usage of the word "eco-loony," which has a dismissive and derogatory connotation, suggesting that environmental advocates are irrational or extreme. By using this term, the article undermines the legitimacy of environmental concerns and paints activists as unreasonable. This language choice can polarize the discussion and detract from meaningful dialogue about sustainable practices.

This article is troubling for a number of reasons, first off, they are intentionally dishonest in their rebuttal to Mr. Trump's claims. The authors say that CBS didn't edit their interview to favor Vice President Harris but simply watching the unedited version of the interview reveals that the network did in fact edit the interview. In the unedited version, Vice President Harris struggles to formulate a coherent sentence for a few moments and then answers. But CNN claims this is not true and try to justify their article by quoting CBS who themselves say the response is from "the same question...just a different portion.' CBS themselves are lying because as stated before, the portion they are referring to comes a few seconds after the Vice President initially struggles to answer. This sort of biased journalism is awful for the field and only serves to further divide America.

This article is misinformation by omission, as it ends up portraying Trump working at McDonalds as more organic than it actually is. In reality, this was a staged campaign event, with the store closed to the public and where everyone who was involved (including the people who acted as customers) was there as a part of the Trump campaign. The article also fails to mention any opposing perspectives, and only includes tweets from other right-wing accounts. There's a very clear right-wing bias in this article's exclusion of important information, and the sourcing of the article, which fails to provide a balanced, accurate view of the event in question.