Previous Troubling Reports

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,

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,

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,

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,

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,