Previous Troubling Reports

I don't think that this news report is trying to be troubling or include false information, but I think they got a very one sided view of the issue in Ohio. All of the quotes are straight from Biden, and not from the people who actually live in the area. Locals would disagree with every statement in this article, change has been slow and there have been little efforts by the government to actually help the people affected.

While the article does make use of statistics, it has twisted the information in a way that is clearly meant to slander Biden and the Democrats. While reading the text, it becomes increasingly clear that the author is against migration. They described the recent immigration bill that failed to pass the Senate as "deceptive" and "lopsided". It further goes on to blame Biden for letting in migrants that the author believes will decrease wages and take jobs. While it may be true that many Americans find the Southern Border to be an alarming situation, the way that the YouGov survey is interpreted is clearly false and misinformation.

This article provides a very one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the current situation in Gaza. It criticizes the way the West is responding to the conflict without providing a balanced report. The piece also makes assumptions about western priorities and does not seek to make objective observations. It would be a more reliable article if it articulated some of the justifications behind actions taken by the U.S. government and its allies, or if it referenced sources other than The Guardian and another Al Jazeera piece.

I found this report to be troubling because the comparisons made are not comparable. When objectively looking at how the govenor has performed, it would be necessary to look at the progress Calironifa has made over a certain time frame. Comparing two different states in this instance only serves the purpose of making one look worse than the other. Florida and California are vastly different states, and there is a clear objective to make California and Galvin Newsom look bad. This leaves the audience with an unrealistic worldview of the situation in Calirfonia. This article confirms Fox News viewers biases against Calironia; however, it does so with porr comparisons and cherry-picked stats.

I found this report to be troubling because the comparisons made are not comparable. When objectively looking at how the govenor has performed, it would be necessary to look at the progress Calironifa has made over a certain time frame. Comparing two different states in this instance only serves the purpose of making one look worse than the other. Florida and California are vastly different states, and there is a clear objective to make California and Galvin Newsom look bad. This leaves the audience with an unrealistic worldview of the situation in Calirfonia. This article confirms Fox News viewers biases against Calironia; however, it does so with porr comparisons and cherry-picked stats.

It's not -too- troubling for me, but the negative words associated with the political figures in this article get quite biased (also backed according to biasly's chrome extension). The use of multiple sources is great though.

This article is clearly very anti- Biden and I feel that it is missing a lot of important information, in an attempt to skew the story towards their side. They also make it seem like Biden's actions were equivalent to Trumps. Additionally, they link other articles bashing Biden throughout the article which takes away the credibility.

This article is clearly very anti- Biden and I feel that it is missing a lot of important information, in an attempt to skew the story towards their side. They also make it seem like Biden's actions were equivalent to Trumps. Additionally, they link other articles bashing Biden throughout the article which takes away the credibility.

The article's author shows a complete negative bias towards Joe Biden regarding his commander-in-chief capability. Recently, President Joe Biden has just concluded he will not be facing criminal charges in his alleged possession of classified documents. The article takes an adverse turn questioning the memory capability of the president using words such as "hazy," "faulty'," or "fuzzy." The article is heavily one-sided towards attacking Joe Biden's capability and fitness. The interviewer's reports about Biden's memory were inappropriate, offensive, and inaccurate. The report is discriminatory and should not have been in a Department of Justice report.

The author's bias is apparent from the title alone and misinforms the reader about the legislation. Jazz Shaw lies to his audience about the proposed legislation allowed thousands of migrants to enter the country illegally. Third party fact-checkers have reported that the bill would bar people from seeking asylum if a border crossing area experienced approximately 5,000 encounters a day. The misinformation and negative tone against the bill and legislators pushing it was designed to mobilize its readers against the legislation. If the author had put his bias aside and analyzed the bill objectively, he would've come to a different conclusion and left the audience with a well-rounded perspective on the bill.

This article does a mediocre job at laying out the arguments placed before the Supreme Court. It is clear from the very beginning that the author is against Trump. The article repeatedly attacks Trump's lawyer and writes how he is over his head and unprepared. It discusses how the justices ripped him apart. The article rebukes the arguments made by Mitchell; however, puts in minimal effort to analyze Colorado's lawyers. They describe Trump's arguments as absurd and silly. The whole text has a negative tone towards Trump and his ability to stay on the ballot.

Even the title suggests the article would be very anti-Trump biased, further escalating in the article - sentences and phrases such as "Trump’s habitual refusal to accept the rules and results of elections" or "four-times criminally indicted Trump" shout it out loud. There are a lot of such passages to talk about but I would like to point out the ending of the article "Trump’s response will be filtered through his highly developed sense of injustice and suspicion of institutions of accountability and his often self-serving interpretation of the law." The author of the article here refers to the history. It might have happened but there is no specific reference attached. That is misleading. And how can the author predict the future? It is ok to mention one's ideas in an opinion based article but this one is not presented as one of those so some readers might take these sentences as facts which might be dangerous. The bias in this article is simply too obvious. As a reporter, the writer should always try to avoid personal opinions leaking in an article and leave some space for the reader to make his or her own opinion. But here, there is too much pressure to accept whatever the author thinks.