Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.