Previous Troubling Reports

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.

I can see multiple issues in this article. Firstly, where did this 'genocide' happen? This article is clearly anti-Israeli biased with no reasoning and backing for this accusation. Further, President Biden is viewed very negatively, criticizing him for backing the 'genocide'. This is a serious accusation. The language used in the article supports this, with wording such as "genocidaire" or "indiscriminate killing," that both reflect a strong bias against the Biden's policies regarding Israel.

The first troubling situation is that the reporters claim to have highly reputable references, however, it fails to name a single one of its "insiders". Following this, the reporters make unfounded claims, such that most of the migrants crossing the US Southern border are child rapists and terrorists. Similarly, they go on to say that the Biden administration has presumably ordered some of the migrant centers to be vacated so they could launch an illegal face recognition device in people's technology to spy them under the premises of a supposed white supremacist attack. Not only are these claims encouraging the stereotyping of migrants in the Southern border, but it is also making very consequential claims that are not proven or backed up by any reputable sources.

The first troubling situation is that the reporters claim to have highly reputable references, however, it fails to name a single one of its "insiders". Following this, the reporters make unfounded claims, such that most of the migrants crossing the US Southern border are child rapists and terrorists. Similarly, they go on to say that the Biden administration has presumably ordered some of the migrant centers to be vacated so they could launch an illegal face recognition device in people's technology to spy them under the premises of a supposed white supremacist attack. Not only are these claims encouraging the stereotyping of migrants in the Southern border, but it is also making very consequential claims that are not proven or backed up by any reputable sources.

This article by the Jacobin is clearly bias and supports a progressive cause. The article is written from an Anti-Israel perspective. It continuously praises South Africa for their case at the International Court of Justice, while criticizing Israel's defense. It further describes the Middle Eastern nation as engaging in colonial violence. It further goes on to accuse international courts of traditional upholding colonial violence and inequality. The author puts no effort into understanding opposing viewpoints or covering the situation from an impartial perspective. A reader would be unable to fully understand the complex events unfolding solely from this text.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.

The article by The New Yorker clearly favors a liberal ideology, consistently painting Donald Trump in a negative light. Much of the language used is meant to evoke an emotional response. The title alone has a negative tone, referring to the nine jurors that ruled against Trump in the Trump-Carroll defamation trial. There was high praise for the jurors for coming to this verdict, and criticisms for the former President and his tactics.

False narratives are spread everyday, there is no proof to justify any claims of CIA involvement. To believe this, similar to the 911 conspiracy theories, is ignorant.

False narratives are spread everyday, there is no proof to justify any claims of CIA involvement. To believe this, similar to the 911 conspiracy theories, is ignorant.

The article is full of obvious biases surrounding the conservative aim to stop immigration from Mexico on the Southern Border of the U.S.. There is almost no evidence supporting any of their claims, which all seem to be very against Biden or anything opposing the actions of the state of Texas. There are random claims about the January 6th incident and the article seems like a way to paint liberals as the enemy instead of just stating what is going on within Texas and the "scheme" that they claim the senate is up to.

Multiple sources have confirmed that there was no systemic voter fraud in the 2020 election. The number of instances is minimal, and the election was held fairly. The article discusses how there was a high level of fraudulent voting. These claims are unfounded. It sets a dangerous precedent to spread lies about an election being plagued with these issues. It promotes distrust and causes division amongst Americans. This type of misinformation can be dangerous to our democracy.