Previous Troubling Reports

This piece is primarily subjective and negatively speak about several Republican officials, such as Donald Trump and Vivek Ramaswamy. The combined compliments and criticisms for Nikki Haley leave an ambiguous message as to what the author really believes about the presidential candidate. It also discredits the reliability of the information, as readers are encouraged to make decisions based on opinion rather than hard facts. The diction is indicative of the author attempting to inspire certain emotions and presuppositions within the readers.

I found this article troubling because it asserts that Mexico is the source of the fentanyl crisis. But after a few quick searches, it was easy to discover that most fentanyl comes through legal ports of entry and involves American citizens. This article fuels the misconception that Mexico is the source of the fentynal problem. A more accurate understanding of fentanyl involves Chinese companies and smugglers, as well as American citizen drug pushers and, to a lesser extent, Mexican smugglers. This rhetoric then fuels the idea that because fentanyl is becoming an increasing problem within the United States, undocumneted immigrants are responsible for this increase, when the truth is much more complicated.

This article seems to just be a subjective hate article against the popular artist Taylor Swift. Although it seemed like the article might have been informing against the amount of C02 emissions that the artists creates while using her private jet, it instead uses the platform to target other aspects of Swift's life. There is no good evidence to back up any statements and the article is not reliable.

This article seems to just be a subjective hate article against the popular artist Taylor Swift. Although it seemed like the article might have been informing against the amount of C02 emissions that the artists creates while using her private jet, it instead uses the platform to target other aspects of Swift's life. There is no good evidence to back up any statements and the article is not reliable.

This article takes an opposing stance against President Joe Biden, accusing him of backing a "genocide" that never happened. Reading the heading alone should already tell the reader what direction this author's report will go. This article presents a strong negative bias towards Biden, supported by the explicit acknowledgment of "rising frustrations" due to his current cease-fire stance. Also, the strong accusations referring to Biden as "genocide Joe." The article lacks any actual reasoning or tangible evidence to support these claims of Biden supporting genocide in Israel. All the article's comments and quotes are opinion-based and present a very one-sided point of view.

I can see multiple issues in this article. Firstly, where did this 'genocide' happen? This article is clearly anti-Israeli biased with no reasoning and backing for this accusation. Further, President Biden is viewed very negatively, criticizing him for backing the 'genocide'. This is a serious accusation. The language used in the article supports this, with wording such as "genocidaire" or "indiscriminate killing," that both reflect a strong bias against the Biden's policies regarding Israel.

The first troubling situation is that the reporters claim to have highly reputable references, however, it fails to name a single one of its "insiders". Following this, the reporters make unfounded claims, such that most of the migrants crossing the US Southern border are child rapists and terrorists. Similarly, they go on to say that the Biden administration has presumably ordered some of the migrant centers to be vacated so they could launch an illegal face recognition device in people's technology to spy them under the premises of a supposed white supremacist attack. Not only are these claims encouraging the stereotyping of migrants in the Southern border, but it is also making very consequential claims that are not proven or backed up by any reputable sources.

The first troubling situation is that the reporters claim to have highly reputable references, however, it fails to name a single one of its "insiders". Following this, the reporters make unfounded claims, such that most of the migrants crossing the US Southern border are child rapists and terrorists. Similarly, they go on to say that the Biden administration has presumably ordered some of the migrant centers to be vacated so they could launch an illegal face recognition device in people's technology to spy them under the premises of a supposed white supremacist attack. Not only are these claims encouraging the stereotyping of migrants in the Southern border, but it is also making very consequential claims that are not proven or backed up by any reputable sources.

This article by the Jacobin is clearly bias and supports a progressive cause. The article is written from an Anti-Israel perspective. It continuously praises South Africa for their case at the International Court of Justice, while criticizing Israel's defense. It further describes the Middle Eastern nation as engaging in colonial violence. It further goes on to accuse international courts of traditional upholding colonial violence and inequality. The author puts no effort into understanding opposing viewpoints or covering the situation from an impartial perspective. A reader would be unable to fully understand the complex events unfolding solely from this text.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.