Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.