Previous Troubling Reports

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.

The title and article have heavy use of biased/charged wording to demonize North Korea. It primarily relies on North Korean state media (KCNA) and lacks independent verification or South Korean perspectives on the missile test's details and intentions. KCNA is known for its propaganda and exaggeration, making claims about the missile's capabilities and threat level suspect. South Korean officials offer a different view, suggesting the test aimed at improving existing systems rather than showcasing a new weapon. The report mentions tensions between the US and South Korea but doesn't adequately analyze how this test fits into the larger geopolitical picture. The report lacks expert opinions or analysis beyond brief quotes, making it difficult to assess the test's true significance and implications. Therefore, while the report details North Korea's claims and actions, it lacks the necessary objectivity and depth to be considered a fully credible source of information. Readers should be cautious and seek out additional perspectives before concluding.

First, I noticed the title and the fact that it is on an opinion piece. This claim written into the title is something that should be subjective to each country, and not used as an overgeneralization pertaining to "all companies throughout the world." It is misleading. Sure, it can be seen as witty, but I don't think it adds to the piece well. The lead isn't too bad at explaining the claim in short. However, it''s a no brainer that this company isn't -actually- the most important company in the world, because world events could change in a second, and one cannot base a claim on something malleable that could change tomorrow. I would have liked to see a different title on this one.

First, I noticed the title and the fact that it is on an opinion piece. This claim written into the title is something that should be subjective to each country, and not used as an overgeneralization pertaining to "all companies throughout the world." It is misleading. Sure, it can be seen as witty, but I don't think it adds to the piece well. The lead isn't too bad at explaining the claim in short. However, it''s a no brainer that this company isn't -actually- the most important company in the world, because world events could change in a second, and one cannot base a claim on something malleable that could change tomorrow. I would have liked to see a different title on this one.