Previous Troubling Reports

This article is not heavily biased against the incumbent president but also is extremely vague in direction. This piece thrives on misinterpretation from the viewer as the writer is trying their best to connect President Biden to Hunter's business. Also, the main headline of this article (Jim Biden) is barely even discussed at all. The author makes it difficult to decipher who they are talking about and comes to rash conclusions like Hunter being friends with a Chinese spy chief with no evidence.

The spread of fake news is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues the United States is facing with the upcoming (and recent) elections. The article is based on the presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's claim that the Democratic Party is attempting to replace Biden with former First Lady Michelle Obama. This argument is completely false and not based in reality, as there is no concrete evidence given to back up such big claims.

In the article they make little to no mention of the role the US has played in the Israel-Palestine conflict, such as funding and supporting Israel as well as vetoing the cease-fire resolution at UN security council. The article also refers to the conflict as a war, but the attacks reported are mostly one-sided which has lead to other media sources to refer to this conflict as genocide against Palestine. The article mentions several times that people in Gaza are starving and living in very poor conditions, however it only mentions in passing the fact that Israel military are the ones actively blocking supplies and starving people in Gaza.

The whole article is written as If it was an opinion-based article, there are too many words that carry strong negative connotations, such as: "strong-arm approaches" or "democratic backsliding". The title itself suggests very biased view on the situation. The narrative is very one-sided, negative view on Bukele's administration. Counterarguments are missing as well as another perspective and viewpoint. Further, I noticed lack of evidence, but that also has something to do with the opinionated approach to the whole article. When a specific information is there, the source is missing. Oversimplificaction and lack of context are other issues of the article.

This article provides a deeply partisan and one-sided account of the events currently occurring in Gaza. Firstly, you can clearly see from the title that the author is more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. They describe Israel's latest attack as a "horrific war crime". Regardless of what thinks about the events unfolding, it is clear what the author's opinion is from the start. Once you begin to read the article, the author's opinion becomes even more clear. He describes the current situation as a "slaughterhouse" and says that there is currently a "brutal dehumanization of an entire people". The article further goes on to partially blame the United States for the starvation of those in Gaza. The article is far from an impartial and well research recent events piece. Instead, it seeks to provide a clearly bias interpretation of what is currently happening in the region. This is extremely dangerous for such a controversial and heated topic. The events unfolding between Palestine and Israel have divided our world. This is why it is so important that both sides are given the chance to provide their side of the story. Independent journalism in such trying times is vital.

This article, along with every other article Fox News covers on Joe and Hunter Biden is very biased. All of their claims are extremely objective with "evidence" or information that is completely false. Their lack of any evidence or credibility throughout the articles makes them very troubling.

This is alarming to me because Fox News has fabricated an "anti-consumer crusade" to scare viewers and further polarize people on topics that were not previously polerized or perceived as issues. Fox News is essentially asserting that updating regulations on water usage and efficiency is in direct contrast with personal liberty and economic freedom. This is simply not true, and this would likely not be an issue had Fox News not made it an issue. This further adds to the negative sentiments Fox viewers have against liberals. This will make it harder to find middle ground on unrelated issues because these views will see Biden and liberals as completely crazy. It can be expected that a conservative network would advocate against regulation, but the way in which Fox News is attacking the Biden administration is that rather than providing counterfacts that prove these new water and electric saving measures are not advantageous, they are attacking Biden on a fabricated agenda, which is lazy and above all dangerous for democracy.

I found this to be very misleading. Fox News is elevating isolated events that do not reflect empirical data on crime within the United States. Fox News is using anecdotal stories to make the impression that illegal immigrants are a large contributing factor to crime within the United States. These emotional analyses are targeted at people who already hold anti-immigrant bias, making them extremely motivating for this sub-section of people. This translates into violence against legal and illegal immigrants, as well as a push for more far-right extremist policies and greater polarization. 

I found this to be very misleading. Fox News is elevating isolated events that do not reflect empirical data on crime within the United States. Fox News is using anecdotal stories to make the impression that illegal immigrants are a large contributing factor to crime within the United States. These emotional analyses are targeted at people who already hold anti-immigrant bias, making them extremely motivating for this sub-section of people. This translates into violence against legal and illegal immigrants, as well as a push for more far-right extremist policies and greater polarization. 

This piece by BBC reads as a particularly one-sided view of what is occurring with Alabama's recent IVF ruling. While it seeks to mention alternate viewpoints, it does so in a way that is meant to incorporate fear and uncertainty in the reader. It is clear that the article highlights left-leaning ideologies, even if it is not specifically stated. The title itself is meant to inspire an emotional reaction, and many of the quotes incorporated support those opposing the court's decision. The opening sentences are not objective or based on any real facts, but exist to highlight an individual opinion that could sway the audience.

The article has poor reliability. For example, there are no unique sources, since all of the used links lead to other articles from Daily Mail. The quotes used are short in length. These quotes also do not show different viewpoints, since they focus only on the struggles of Ukraine, such as Ukraine's supply shortages or the challenges that Ukrainian soldiers face. The authors also show a bias regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine. They state, "All too quickly, the public outrage over missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and blood-curdling images of mass civilian slaughter in defenceless villages began to recede. People busy with the bustle of everyday life simply became accustomed to the horror..." The authors stress their own opinion that people are not paying enough attention to the war.

The article has poor reliability. For example, there are no unique sources, since all of the used links lead to other articles from Daily Mail. The quotes used are short in length. These quotes also do not show different viewpoints, since they focus only on the struggles of Ukraine, such as Ukraine's supply shortages or the challenges that Ukrainian soldiers face. The authors also show a bias regarding the war between Russia and Ukraine. They state, "All too quickly, the public outrage over missile attacks on Ukrainian cities and blood-curdling images of mass civilian slaughter in defenceless villages began to recede. People busy with the bustle of everyday life simply became accustomed to the horror..." The authors stress their own opinion that people are not paying enough attention to the war.