Previous Troubling Reports

The main source of this article is a well-known Republican doctor, who's name is not mentioned anywhere in the article. This shows concern for misinformation, mainly because the physician speaks highly of Donald Trump, and makes claims that negatively effect Joe Biden's reputation. Even if President Biden has some form of cognitive issues, no logical or examples facts are presented to back up the claims. I believe the physician could be lying in order to benefit the Republican party, just as easily as a more liberal standing doctor could claim Biden is in fit condition for another four years as a way to benefit the Democratic party.

This news is troubling because they failed to provide greater context to the reasoning behind why the U.S. did not send any military aid to Ukraine the past 3 months. The reason is because of Russia disagreement and threats made. Knowing this information can help readers gain a better understanding of the events and see the roll the US is playing. Without the extra context it makes it seem as though the U.S. has no specific grounds for helping Ukraine other than not to allow them to lose territory over Russia.

The article mentions that the population is "on the brink of famine", but leaves out the fact that the population is being strategically starved by the Israeli government. The article also leaves out the fact that there have been many conflicts regarding Gaza's offshore gas reserves. This fact adds another layer to the proposed marine corridor which goes beyond simply sending aid to Palestinians in Gaza.

I feel that it is honestly unnecessary to report in this fashion, including phrases of the president stumbling over his words. It's not new, and everyone knows he has memory issues. The article uses biased language as well to traffic an audience.

The author, David Nir, provides a biased perspective on the news of recently-expelled congressman George Santos announcing he's running for Congress again. The expediency bias in the title, "Good luck getting on the ballot!" shows liberal bias because the author laughs at Santos's plans. The tone makes it clear that the author does not like Santos and the last line captures it perfectly, "Well, if there's one thing Santos is familiar with, it's failing to hold up under scrutiny." An unbiased article wouldn't have these opinions regarding Santos, the tone would be neutral, and diction would simply stick to the facts at hand.

This article covers the events of the State of the Union in a very biased way. From the title alone you can see that the article is going to be clearly anti-Trump. They call him an "Orange Ape". Once you delve into the article, you can see that the author uses more of these names. They call Marjorie Taylor Greene "Marge Trailer Park Greene". Further down, the author describes the Republicans as a bunch of middle schoolers and the Speaker Mike Johnson as a little man. They also say that those who don't learn the lessons of history are called Republicans. This article is worrisome because rather than focusing on Biden's speech and his message, the text is focused on being anti-Republican. To better cover the president's speech, they could have describe the facts in a nonpartisan way without adding their opinions or calling certain politicians names.

This is troubling news because the article makes it seem as though the gangs are simply going at war with one another and want the prime minister to step down. They fail to go into detail in regards to the decisions the prime minister has made and how most of those decisions are in favor of the US taking Haiti's natural resources. The article also fails to mention how the prime minister's term has run out and he needs to step down but refuses to. More importantly that the US wants the prime minister to remain even though they claim Haiti needs democracy but is insisting that a prime minister who's term is up to remain in control simply because he is passing the decisions that will benefit them and not Haiti. The lack of acknowledgment of this information is making it seem as though Haiti is at war with itself and not the corrupt government.

This article is not heavily biased against the incumbent president but also is extremely vague in direction. This piece thrives on misinterpretation from the viewer as the writer is trying their best to connect President Biden to Hunter's business. Also, the main headline of this article (Jim Biden) is barely even discussed at all. The author makes it difficult to decipher who they are talking about and comes to rash conclusions like Hunter being friends with a Chinese spy chief with no evidence.

The spread of fake news is, undoubtedly, one of the biggest issues the United States is facing with the upcoming (and recent) elections. The article is based on the presidential candidate Vivek Ramaswamy's claim that the Democratic Party is attempting to replace Biden with former First Lady Michelle Obama. This argument is completely false and not based in reality, as there is no concrete evidence given to back up such big claims.

In the article they make little to no mention of the role the US has played in the Israel-Palestine conflict, such as funding and supporting Israel as well as vetoing the cease-fire resolution at UN security council. The article also refers to the conflict as a war, but the attacks reported are mostly one-sided which has lead to other media sources to refer to this conflict as genocide against Palestine. The article mentions several times that people in Gaza are starving and living in very poor conditions, however it only mentions in passing the fact that Israel military are the ones actively blocking supplies and starving people in Gaza.

The whole article is written as If it was an opinion-based article, there are too many words that carry strong negative connotations, such as: "strong-arm approaches" or "democratic backsliding". The title itself suggests very biased view on the situation. The narrative is very one-sided, negative view on Bukele's administration. Counterarguments are missing as well as another perspective and viewpoint. Further, I noticed lack of evidence, but that also has something to do with the opinionated approach to the whole article. When a specific information is there, the source is missing. Oversimplificaction and lack of context are other issues of the article.

This article provides a deeply partisan and one-sided account of the events currently occurring in Gaza. Firstly, you can clearly see from the title that the author is more sympathetic to the Palestinian cause. They describe Israel's latest attack as a "horrific war crime". Regardless of what thinks about the events unfolding, it is clear what the author's opinion is from the start. Once you begin to read the article, the author's opinion becomes even more clear. He describes the current situation as a "slaughterhouse" and says that there is currently a "brutal dehumanization of an entire people". The article further goes on to partially blame the United States for the starvation of those in Gaza. The article is far from an impartial and well research recent events piece. Instead, it seeks to provide a clearly bias interpretation of what is currently happening in the region. This is extremely dangerous for such a controversial and heated topic. The events unfolding between Palestine and Israel have divided our world. This is why it is so important that both sides are given the chance to provide their side of the story. Independent journalism in such trying times is vital.