Previous Troubling Reports

The article’s tone shows potential bias, especially in its portrayal of Trump. Phrases like "double down on his demeaning outlook" and "ripping on the U.S. city" imply a negative view of Trump’s remarks on Detroit, shaping readers’ perceptions. While it covers Trump’s rally and critical comments in detail, it provides minimal information on Kamala Harris and Michelle Obama’s rally, which creates an imbalanced focus. Additionally, statements like "which is simply untrue" regarding Trump’s comparison of Detroit to Chinese cities could seem opinionated without supporting context, further contributing to a slant against him.

I find this news troubling because it raises concerns all raises concern about the potential for increased polarization and division within the country. We are all aware the popular vote is not the deciding factor for an election we saw in the 2016 election. From the headline, CNN is inciting that Trump is more likely to win the election, giving his supporters a false sense of hope and voters a sense of uneasiness.

This news article is troubling to me because it only covers the Democrats leaving the party. This feels like a one-sided as it does not cover at all how many Republicans are leaving the party. This makes the article right-leaning as it is doing it best to show that Democrats are leaving the party in droves especially with the title seeiing 103% rise leaving. The article is accurate in its telling of the ammount of Democrat voters switching but also makes it seem like Harris might be the reason for it with the sentence that Harris's strategy is making them flee. This article could have been more unbiaseed with discussing the total percentages for both of the major parties instead of focusing on one.

This is troubling news for me because it's just another example of how easy it is to fake information on the internet and spread it. Specifically, it's another example of someone trying to sew distrust in the government and our election by faking information. With videos, it's harder to distinguish whether or not something is real, which makes it more likely that people will more readily believe it even if it isn't true. I'm glad people are trying to crack down on this misinformation and push back, but it still spreads to incredibly fast it's hard to try to control it all.

The title alone is what drew me to this article. It boldly uses the term "death cult" to mislead people into thinking the fossil fuel industry is deliberately harmful. While the industry does contribute significantly to climate change, it may oversimplify and exaggerate the industry claiming it disregards human life. Another issue I found with this article is the article's usage of the word "eco-loony," which has a dismissive and derogatory connotation, suggesting that environmental advocates are irrational or extreme. By using this term, the article undermines the legitimacy of environmental concerns and paints activists as unreasonable. This language choice can polarize the discussion and detract from meaningful dialogue about sustainable practices.

This article is troubling for a number of reasons, first off, they are intentionally dishonest in their rebuttal to Mr. Trump's claims. The authors say that CBS didn't edit their interview to favor Vice President Harris but simply watching the unedited version of the interview reveals that the network did in fact edit the interview. In the unedited version, Vice President Harris struggles to formulate a coherent sentence for a few moments and then answers. But CNN claims this is not true and try to justify their article by quoting CBS who themselves say the response is from "the same question...just a different portion.' CBS themselves are lying because as stated before, the portion they are referring to comes a few seconds after the Vice President initially struggles to answer. This sort of biased journalism is awful for the field and only serves to further divide America.

This article is misinformation by omission, as it ends up portraying Trump working at McDonalds as more organic than it actually is. In reality, this was a staged campaign event, with the store closed to the public and where everyone who was involved (including the people who acted as customers) was there as a part of the Trump campaign. The article also fails to mention any opposing perspectives, and only includes tweets from other right-wing accounts. There's a very clear right-wing bias in this article's exclusion of important information, and the sourcing of the article, which fails to provide a balanced, accurate view of the event in question.

I found this article by Al Jazeera to very dishonest for a number of reasons. They claim that former President Trump is being strategically ambiguous about abortion but his campaign has made it very clear that he is letting abortion go back to the states. Furthermore, he has voiced opposition to a national abortion ban. I think the writers were titling it this because Donald Trump has a tradition of saying contradictory things but his comments do not reflect the official position of his campaign.

The title of this article makes it obvious that this piece will be biased against Trump and will be left leaning. The article also states that Trump is weaponizing the hurricanes for a campign issue. The article also says that Trump cannot handle national crises as well as that his handling of crises during his second term would be work. Also that Trump believes that people should only get funding based on where they live becuase of his handling of Puerto Rico. The article states that Trump only cares about himself and how he will not admit to mistakes when it comes to handling disasters. The article keeps harping on Trump and his inability to handle issues that will happen during his second term. Also, that people will not be able to trust Trump during his term for how he handled this issues during his first term. This article is obviously left-leaning and does paints Trump in a bad light.

I have a few issues with this article, it tries to portray Vice President Harris as humane and tough on enforcing the law when it comes to immigration. Yet in the same article, it admits that she supports, "...legislation that would provide a path to citizenship for undocumented immigrants." If you are a true supporter of the law then you would under no circumstance support citizenship for those who broke it. Furthermore, NPR is trying to cover for the administration in their catastrophic handling of the southern border when they know, I know, and we all know, that if the President of the United States of America wanted to, he could, along with the Vice President, seal the border right now. The Vice President could call the President and suggest he declare a state of emergency that would give her more power to go after criminals and illegal immigrants but the administration continues to NOT do that, I wonder why? Say what you will about the incompetence of Donald Trump's administration, the point is that Kamala Harri's boss is the most powerful man on the planet. He can if he wanted to, fix the border issue once and for all by making the difficult and controversial choices of deporting illegal immigrants. But recent administrations on both sides haven't had the spine to do so thus far. They both use the issue for political gain and its getting old.

The article takes an extreme conservative and pro-Israel stance, not giving the pro-Palestine viewpoint offered by Coates fair consideration in the show segment the article is about. None of Coates' words are quoted in the article. Dokoupil (the journalist in the headline) and tweets supporting his more pro-Israeli perspective are the only side directly shown. The article describes Coates' views as having "deeply flawed logic," revealing the blatant bias of the writer. It's sourcing is from other right-leaning sources as well, meaning opposite viewpoints are largely absent. Overall, this article does not offer a primarily informative and objective look at what happened during Coates' interview. It takes a very clear side, while completely omitting or dismissing the arguments from the other direction. By not covering the pro-Palestinian perspective or why some might be critical of Dokoupil's conduct in good faith, it inaccurately portrays those positions. It's an article that pushes readers towards an opinion on an issue while largely omitting and deliberately misconstruing by implication the alternative one.

The headline asserts that Elon Musk's political positions is the main reason a California Commission rejected a Space Force Plan for SpaceX launches, when the linked Politico article it's pulling from (and the actual article itself) reveals a much more nuanced situation involving a variety of issues, with major points of contention involving the military's request to exempt SpaceX from obtaining their own permits, and the military not committing to conditions to protect the environment and public access to the coast. The language used in the headline seeks to get readers to form a quick impression on the situation that's stripped of all nuance, and also an inaccurate evaluation of it.