Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.