Previous Troubling Reports

This article attempts to highlight budget cuts in California's wildfire and forest resilience programs that amounted up to 100 million dollars. Whenever there is a natural disaster, some media sources may find it prudent to use their outlets to spur animosity towards certain officials. What this article then outlines (and conveniently leaves out of the headline) is that the California FIRE budget has nearly doubled from 2 billion to 4 billion dollars in the last 7 years, most of which under Gavin Newsoms leadership. Even though the article does eventually state this, I always find it troubling when articles have headlines like this for the sake of clickbaiting.

The article is troubling because it uses a very concrete voice when expressing subjective claims. For example, the article calls the UK's Reform party as far-right, a title the party has rejected and even sued the BBC for using. Furthermore, it calls Tommy Robinson a fascist in the sub-heading, typically a place for an objective truth - not an opinion or a subjective claim.

The author uses crime cases in his advocation for stricter border policies, writing, "...the death of Laken Riley, a Georgia college student, would bring the issue of migrant crime back to the headlines. Jose Ibarra, a Venezuelan illegal immigrant...was charged with her murder. In July, two illegal immigrants were arrested on capital murder charges in the death of 12-year-old Jocelyn Nungaray in Houston. The men are accused of luring her under a bridge, tying her up and killing her before throwing her body into a river...While immigration activists would point to stats suggesting that immigrants commit fewer crimes than American citizens, those talking points appeared to do little to stem the outrage about the deaths of people at the hands of illegal immigrants who conservatives argued shouldn't have been let into the country in the first place." The author seeks to create negative emotions in the reader, and use these emotions to make the reader biased against illegal immigrants.

The article has a bias in favor of Trump. This is seen when the author writes, "Gray said there are clear strategic reasons for the US to be interested in acquiring Greenland, which is why Trump’s comments about it deserve special attention." The author justifies Trump's idea of obtaining Greenland, and does not address any negative views of this idea.

The content is basically based on the perspective of suburban commuting drivers, which persuasively criticizes the policy but disregards the merits of the congestion pricing policy brought to service vehicles, bike commuters, pedestrians, etc. who live in the heart of Manhattan or Queens.

A misleading title that makes it seem that the Democratic party is pro "White" and "far-right" terrorism, even though the article focuses on the hypocrisy of select democratic party individuals believing that white terrorism is more damaging versus ISIS/al-Qaeda. This is misleading as it frames the party to excuse ISIS/al-Qaeda and only focus on white supremacy, even though there is no evidence presented to show the democratic party excusing ISIS/al-Qaeda. The article also only references quotes made previously to the New Orleans attack, yet uses those quotes as links to the New Orleans attack. A more accurate approach would be to, instead, pull quotes of certain Democratic party individuals' responses to the attack.

A misleading title that makes it seem that the Democratic party is pro "White" and "far-right" terrorism, even though the article focuses on the hypocrisy of select democratic party individuals believing that white terrorism is more damaging versus ISIS/al-Qaeda. This is misleading as it frames the party to excuse ISIS/al-Qaeda and only focus on white supremacy, even though there is no evidence presented to show the democratic party excusing ISIS/al-Qaeda. The article also only references quotes made previously to the New Orleans attack, yet uses those quotes as links to the New Orleans attack. A more accurate approach would be to, instead, pull quotes of certain Democratic party individuals' responses to the attack.

The title is very shocking and meant to be able to grab readers attention for the article. This is actually what drew me in was because of the title. The article also starts off with bias with the title showing they are biased against the GOP and Republicans. The article paints the view that Republicans do not care at all about the rise of newborns being abandoned. The article states that the Republicans give a “collective shrug” and not acknowledge the problem. Safe haven laws are meant to allow mothers to safely surrender their newborns to authorities to let them be taken care of but the author has disdain for the Texas laws calling them “so-called” safe haven laws. The article writes that the right and the GOP are trying to force women into motherhood or punish them for not accepting it. The last paragraph of this article shows again the bias that the author has which is very much an emotional response to what is happening in Texas but it is taking away from trying to combat the newborn abandonment problem in Texas. This article from start to finish is infused with lots of bias for Texas, the GOP, and Republicans.

The story surrounding Luigi Mangione has sparked a heated debate in this country, especially amongst the youth. In what should be a story of the death of a private citizen, publications are using the viral clout of Mangione to make inflammatory and provocative headlines for people to react to. The title of the article from the New York Post calls supporters of Mangione sick. This further plays into the hand of creating a spectacle of division surrounding this story. I suppose what troubles me most about this story is that the healthiest response to this event is a neutral tone, yet that has been the opposite of what many publications have done.

This article focuses on media, specifically traditionally liberal media like Saturday Night Live and late night talk shows with clear anti-liberal bias. The title is full of right wing ideas while insulting liberal ideas and the liberal media for their support of Kamala Harris who lost the 2024 election. The article is not labeled as an opinion even though it is clearly filled with bias and is a way for the author to insult and ridicule liberal media. With lines like, “The impotency of their anti-Trump media” any facts in the article are overshadowed by the authors clear opinion.

This article focuses on media, specifically traditionally liberal media like Saturday Night Live and late night talk shows with clear anti-liberal bias. The title is full of right wing ideas while insulting liberal ideas and the liberal media for their support of Kamala Harris who lost the 2024 election. The article is not labeled as an opinion even though it is clearly filled with bias and is a way for the author to insult and ridicule liberal media. With lines like, “The impotency of their anti-Trump media” any facts in the article are overshadowed by the authors clear opinion.

The article discusses Trump's desire to gain the Panama Canal back from the country of Panama. The article says that China has a growing influence in Panama because the country was going to have infrastrcture built by Chinese companies. This however does not mean that there was an influence of China considering the US and China both use the canal. The US actually did influence the Panama government by getting them to cancel those infrastrcture contracts. The article discusses the history of the canal but not how a new treaty would be the best for the American people. The article does not discuss how much it would cost the US to maintain security down there, the money to repair and maintain the canal. The article discusses how Trump could demand for a new treaty and pull the US out of the treaty it has with Panama. However, the article does not discuss what could happen from pulling the US out of the treaty and if that could harm the United States. The most troubling part of this article is how it does not talk about the opposing side of how it could be bad for the United States and what happens if the United States takes control. The article relies on how good it would be for the US to gain control of the Canal but does not discuss the other side of the coin.