Previous Troubling Reports

The left leaning bias against Donald Trump from this article are obvious, and perhaps not surprising given HuffPost's reputation. The article itself goes over an interview with Trump on Fox News where he attempts to defend himself from allegations of election interference. It specifically discusses a statement he made where he supposedly confessed to the crime, followed by tweets from various legal minds criticizing the former president's statement. What is possibly worrying about this article and any widespread coverage of allegations of election interference is that it has the potential of causing the American people to lose faith in elections in general and the power of the vote.

This article is so biased and just making assumptions without actually speaking to Harris or her father which is dangerous. The author jumps to lots of conclusions based on their own preconceived notions and doesn't take a balanced evidence based approach.

This news is troubling because the headline does not match the content of the article. It uses the Arlington cemetery controversy and only mentions it once. The article also dismissed the Utah Gov and Trump though the headline makes it sound like it is a positive article.

This article is misleading because it poses the superintendent as being pro-patriotism, and the school as being anti-patriotism. In reality, the school that asked the student to remove the flag has several reasons has to why flags are not allowed to be flown on trucks. Additionally, they also do fly flags on campus, but in appropriate locations. Particularly with high schoolers, the fear that something hanging on a car would become a distraction is valid and a serious consideration to make. The article tries to make it seem as though the school is against patriotism or celebrating America, but a further look into the situation shows that the issue is about safety and keeping the school clear of distraction.

This article is misleading because it poses the superintendent as being pro-patriotism, and the school as being anti-patriotism. In reality, the school that asked the student to remove the flag has several reasons has to why flags are not allowed to be flown on trucks. Additionally, they also do fly flags on campus, but in appropriate locations. Particularly with high schoolers, the fear that something hanging on a car would become a distraction is valid and a serious consideration to make. The article tries to make it seem as though the school is against patriotism or celebrating America, but a further look into the situation shows that the issue is about safety and keeping the school clear of distraction.

This article is biased in its portrayal of Harris criticizing her throughout. It presents information that might mislead readers. For instance it over-exaggerates and also simplifies her policy changes without explaining the reasons behind them well. This could lead to a misunderstanding. It heavily includes criticisms from Trump and other Republicans. Overall, it has a negative tone ; it uses words like "backtracks", "political opportunism" which paints her in a negative way.

What looks like a CNN breaking news segment about car insurance for veterans is drawing attention on social media, but maybe not the attention the account posting the video hoped for. The video in the Aug. 18 Facebook post features CNN’s logo and a "breaking news" chyron that says: "Veterans are cancelling their auto insurance and doing this instead. The video itself is altered. The audio is out of sync with the person supposedly talking in the video. No such story exists on CNN’s website. And the network spells canceling with one L, not two, as the word appears in the purported chyron. I rate this as an authentic CNN segment False.

The title of this article from the Daily Mail is very misleading and biased. It makes it seem as though Biden did not participate in honoring the same 13 military members that Trump did. The article reports that both Biden and Harris participated in honoring the fallen, considering the content of the article, the use of the title which implies Biden did not participate is not justified.

Obviously, opinion pieces are meant to express only the views of the author, and have to be taken with a grain of salt. But there is a difference between respectful disagreement and whatever this piece is; nowhere does the author demonstrate a good faith effort to present the topic in a neutral manner. Disparaging the oratorical skills of Harris and Walz is engaging in ad hominem attacks without an honest effort to engage with the substance of their arguments. There is no reason a similar title to the CNN coverage could not have been chosen (Takeaways from Kamala Harris' First Interview). Critique could still have been leveled wihtuot showing one's hand so nakedly.

This article is incredibly negative towards Harris starting with the catchy title and throughout the article. The author's bias is apparent and doesn't allow the reader to think and form their own opinion. The quotes used in the article are also biased against Harris and the article is really just an attack on what she's previously said and doubting her abilities.

To call this an opinion piece would be using misinformation, as reading this feels more like a smear campaigning propaganda piece rather than an Op-Ed. The whole article has no real point or any real conclusion other than to try and make Kamala Harris look bad. However, rather than going into what policies the author disagrees with and expressing why they are, in the author's opinion, the wrong way to handle these ideas, the entire piece just spouts exaggerated and hostile claims about Kamala Harris, the Democratic Party, and even the few Republican politicians who took part in the Convention, even referring to Adam Kinzinger as "Nancy Pelosi’s pet traitor on the Jan. 6 committee". The writing for this piece is so unprofessional and radical, it's comically childish.

This news post is not really misinformation--it's simply a troubling opinion piece. The article is written in a highly cynic and dismissive tone, making valid criticisms less factually strong. Articles such as this are not helpful for contributing to a more positive and constructive environment in American politics. The authors of course have the right to write whatever they want, but their choices in rhetoric should still be criticized. The article risks alienating readers from a more informed and critical examination of Democratic leaders.