Previous Troubling Reports

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.

Daily Kos is openly left-wing but they do not try to separate factual reporting and editorials. The article above is a good example. Right from the title, it is apparent the author is far from a fan of Nikki Haley. As you read through the article, he becomes increasingly negative towards the Republican Party, indicating that he's viewing the GOP primaries through a liberal perspective. He describes the state of the Republican Party as "wreckage." He also described the Republicans who initially competed against Donald Trump and turned around to endorse him as bootlickers. He cites some articles to support his claims but leaves certain statements without any citation. For example, he wrote that everyone predicted Nikki Haley would lose her home state by a wide margin but does not cite any election forecasters to back it up. It leaves the audience assuming the author is right. The article ends with a call to action, "Sign the petition to news media: Trump is a clear and present danger to democracy."

I think that this articles main purpose is just to hate on President Biden. I think that reliance on note cards is something a lot of speakers do. If they had more to say about his memory they would've had a better article, but they are just nitpicking at this point.

You are able to clearly see this this article is bias just from reading the title. The author uses heated language that is very clearly anti-Republican. I was able to tell that this article would be slanted against right-wing politicians right away. The bias becomes even more clear once you begin to read the text. Mother Jones writes about how Republicans have worked with the Kremlin to undermine Biden. Whether or not this is true, the article provides minimal unbiased facts or research to support their claims. The only source they utilize is Alexander Smirnov. The author makes no effort to challenge the Eastern European man's claims. The text could have potentially become a groundbreaking investigated article if they would have just more effort into challenging and confirming certain details of the whistleblowers story. It is not enough to rely on the opinion of one person.

This is just one of many articles that is very opinion based not being labeled as one. Even the title suggests that. The first issue is the language used that is no way near neutral. Phrases such as "mass murder of Palestinian civilians," "indiscriminately slaughters civilians" are just examples. Further, not even the politicians' portrayal is factual - following sentence proves that: "disgusted by President Biden’s role in arming, financing, and providing diplomatic cover". The author's personal anti-Israeli bias is very clear throughout the article, as his opinion on the actions of President Biden and the Israeli government, characterizing them as "ethnic cleansing," "atrocities," and "slaughter." These are strong, subjective terms that reflect the author's perspective on the events. The whole text, rather than presenting facts, presents the author's viewpoints, and forces the readers to adopt the same rhetorics as it offers no alternative opinions.

The article is not blatantly biased but contains conservative undertones. From the title, the expediency bias leans conservative because it implies that two Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, got snubbed while the two Democratic ones, Obama and Biden, were ranked higher then they should have. The author, Michael Lee, has a history of working for conservative media outlets such as the Washington Examiner, Bongino.com, and Unbiased America. His tone is slightly negative against the Presidential Greatness Project and how they went about ranking each president. His diction is similarly negative and uses quotes in a way that can create the impression that the contributors to the project are out-of-touch elitists. The article does not include any sources that showcase a different perspective or even a link to the source of the rankings. Overall, the source is biased towards conservatives with subpar reliability.

The article is not blatantly biased but contains conservative undertones. From the title, the expediency bias leans conservative because it implies that two Republican presidents, Ronald Reagan and Donald Trump, got snubbed while the two Democratic ones, Obama and Biden, were ranked higher then they should have. The author, Michael Lee, has a history of working for conservative media outlets such as the Washington Examiner, Bongino.com, and Unbiased America. His tone is slightly negative against the Presidential Greatness Project and how they went about ranking each president. His diction is similarly negative and uses quotes in a way that can create the impression that the contributors to the project are out-of-touch elitists. The article does not include any sources that showcase a different perspective or even a link to the source of the rankings. Overall, the source is biased towards conservatives with subpar reliability.

Although the sources are cited and mostly refer to Haley's direct citations, the article only presents one perspective on the issue. The reader is thrown into the topic, being presented with Navalny being a hero and Putin his killer. There is no context on the situation or other opinions and stances whatsoever. The article is extremely short and could use some more information that would support the arguments as well as opposing stances. This could be dangerous because a reader who does not know much about the issue can easily be drawn into taking the information presented here as given.

The Hanity show is continuing to spread the false information that Donald Trump has done nothing wrong. They said that Donald Trump did not harm anyone; however, if you break the law, you are causing harm by disregarding the law and therefore the authority of New York State's government. They then state that the court is rigged, and this undermines trust in our institutions, which is a major contributor to polzerazion. This kind of content is very dangerous for a democracy.

This is troubling to me because it is simply not true. There are many prosecutors and investigators working to prove that this is, in fact, true. Then a judge examines these claims and determines whether they are true or not. During this process, there are several highly qualified people who are working on this case. Despite this, Mark Levin can have access to a large platform and lie on television without knowing all the facts of the case. This is blatant disinformation. Many Fox News viewers will repeat what they hear, and when you believe a lie such as this one, it leaves little room to actually be informed on the issue.

This is troubling to me because it is simply not true. There are many prosecutors and investigators working to prove that this is, in fact, true. Then a judge examines these claims and determines whether they are true or not. During this process, there are several highly qualified people who are working on this case. Despite this, Mark Levin can have access to a large platform and lie on television without knowing all the facts of the case. This is blatant disinformation. Many Fox News viewers will repeat what they hear, and when you believe a lie such as this one, it leaves little room to actually be informed on the issue.

All this talk about this alleged "dirty business" involving Biden and his son with Ukraine is just getting out of hand. Nothing solid has been proven, and no evidence has been shown to solidify such allegations. All we are getting left and right are statements that are just hearsay. This is no different from when Trump tried accusing Hilary Clinton of the emails that Hunt, which, again, was investigated multiple times, and nothing came out of it.