Previous Troubling Reports

The reason this post is disturbing is that Dana Bash is pushing a story that is a lie and was fact-checked by other reporters when it came to the situation regarding Rashida Talib. Talib Herself has said that Nessel did not charge pro-Palestinian protestors over religion.

This title is troubling since it brings a more serious undertone than the reality. It suggests that VP Harris and Trump are literally targeting civil society. The uneducated may at first glance, think this to mean authoritarian measures however upon reading the article, the intro claims both side want to raise taxes. That may be true for VP Harris but former President Trump has made it very clear he has no such intention and instead would give more tax breaks to the wealthy. Furthermore, they make mention a claim that both sides want to tax non-profits but fail to make that the point of discussion in the title. I would argue when people think of civil society, they do not think of non-profits.

The title itself is already misleading. At first glance, the article makes it sound that the Japanese fired at Russian jets with actually weapons. This is not true, the Japanese responded by firing warning flares, not missiles or bullets. The article even says as much in its first line, "Russian aircrafts were intercepted by Japanese fighter jets firing warning flares." Further casting the article's reliability into doubt is that all of the linked sources in it appear to be from other pieces by the Irish Star rather than another news agency or outside source. For context, the Irish Star is owned by Reach pls who also own the British Daily Star. Both are known to cover stories in a more sensationalized manner rather than wholly truthful. With all of this in mind, the article seems to be trying to gain circulation and views by playing into anxieties over a global war. People are already on edge as it is and adding to it does not help the situation.

This article from the New York Post covers the testimony of a former border patrol officer who claims that the White House is trying to "quiet the border-wide crisis." The administration is supposedly doing this by withholding information from press, releasing illegal migrants and concealing the crossing of "dangerous migrants with terror ties." The bias against the current administration should be pretty clear from this, and the article seems to try to drive the narrative that the Biden-Harris White House cares more about illegal immigrants than their own citizens. It also seems to tap into the narrative of "migrant crime" with the mentioning "dangerous migrants with terror ties." An article like this can prove concerning, not just because of the "migrant crime" narrative it seems to support but also the possibility that it can erode trust in government. If people are thinking that the administration is covering up a bunch of illegal crossing, they're not going to trust it. There already seems to be a widespread distrust in American government and institutions generally, and this does not help the situation.

The biggest issue here is that the author claims that Mark Robinson, the NC GOP nominee for governor, definitely made these posts on this website. I heard about this on the evening news last night, finding it particularly important since I am from North Carolina, and it was said that there has been no confirmation as of yet that these comments were written by him. However, this article seems to claim that these comments were one hundred percent written by Mark Robinson. It connects the username to other usernames that Mark Robinson often uses on other websites and social media, as well as other connections such as birthday, similar speech, etc. The author claims that his full name and email were also listed on his profile on this particular site, but there are no screenshots of this or any other concrete evidence. Mark Robinson of course denied these claims, despite there being pretty compelling evidence. However, none of this is completely confirmed, and the author attempts to frame everything as if it is entirely true.

It has a number of claims that are misleading. It is equating all Palestinians with Hamas fighters which is not true. It also suggests that Harris is stalling Israel’s military efforts on purpose. The language used throughout is also accusatory, and uses terms like “Loo-Loo Land thinking” about her policies, which is inappropriate. It dismisses her views and words.

Putting aside the disjointed and childish writing, this article is a prime example of trying to spread hate and fear about a party using prejudice. The insulting descriptions of Haitian people is an absolute stretching of the truth as it merely condemns the entire Haitian population for actions and behaviors of a cherry picked few that are complete exaggerations of the truth. Furthermore, the article attempts to use these biased view points as attacks on the Biden-Harris administration, painting them as incompetently despicable without using actual valid sources or even arguments on the subject.

I find this article to be problematic because the title is misleading. It suggests that a coal-fired power plant found a way to solve clean energy. At the very least it is poor wording, at the very worst, it is nefarious in intent. Because the average person may immediately think, "Wow, maybe fossil fuels aren't so bad after all." And then share this article on Facebook or something and then all the climate deniers will immediately dog pile on it. Fossil fuels are incredibly pollutive and this title is deeply irresponsible in that it lead readers to believe they may actually help the country as oppose to hurt it. That weakens the overall green argument and is problematic.

This article is troubling because it suggests that Haitians are stealing geese from parks as an open-ended question and does not do anything to help mitigate false rumors about Haitian immigrants that have been going around on social media.

This article is slightly problematic for its unequal focus on Trump's perspectives and claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators. Many quotes illustrating Trump's attacks on Harris were presented, but none of Harris's arguments against Trump's perspectives. This shows a bias towards Trump's ideas. The author also mentions claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators, but the evidence comes from other peoples' commentary, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, rather than a thorough analysis of the debate itself.

This article is slightly problematic for its unequal focus on Trump's perspectives and claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators. Many quotes illustrating Trump's attacks on Harris were presented, but none of Harris's arguments against Trump's perspectives. This shows a bias towards Trump's ideas. The author also mentions claims of bias towards Harris by the moderators, but the evidence comes from other peoples' commentary, such as Vivek Ramaswamy, rather than a thorough analysis of the debate itself.

The article is troubling because it only uses a Democratic view point, adding the opinion of a Harris aid. Furthermore, there is no focus on their policies as a way to see who "won" the debate. Americans care far more about policy than the body language of a candidate when deciding if they had a good performance and if they are worth voting for.