Previous Troubling Reports

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.

The claim that the media and the DNC are "rigging" the election against Trump and Kennedy plays into existing conspiracy narratives that lack substantial evidence. The article repeatedly criticizes Kamala Harris, using derogatory language and unfounded claims e.g., calling her a "phantom candidate" and implying she was installed without any democratic process. The article also asserts that Trump "knocked out" Biden in a debate, ending Biden's political career. This is not only a subjective interpretation but also an exaggeration. While opinion pieces are meant to present a viewpoint, this extreme article lacks balance and relies on hyperbolic language to vilify an entire political party. This can contribute to polarization and distrust in democratic institutions.

The claim that the media and the DNC are "rigging" the election against Trump and Kennedy plays into existing conspiracy narratives that lack substantial evidence. The article repeatedly criticizes Kamala Harris, using derogatory language and unfounded claims e.g., calling her a "phantom candidate" and implying she was installed without any democratic process. The article also asserts that Trump "knocked out" Biden in a debate, ending Biden's political career. This is not only a subjective interpretation but also an exaggeration. While opinion pieces are meant to present a viewpoint, this extreme article lacks balance and relies on hyperbolic language to vilify an entire political party. This can contribute to polarization and distrust in democratic institutions.

The title already gives away the author's heavy bias against the American right. Their article goes on to discuss how there's an apparent rise in Christian nationalism in the United States and that the Republican Party is using the religion for political gain, or as they put it "obtaining authoritarian power." This is problematic for a few reasons. For one, fearmongering is a tactic that has been used by far right public speakers and writers, and this author doesn't exactly prove to be much better themselves when using the same tactic from the other side of the aisle. Second, if Americans are being told that a bunch of Christian nationalists are trying to take over the country and make it more authoritarian, that's going to put the people who believe that on edge. When that happens, they become more prone to demonizing the other side of the aisle and seeing them as an existential threat. That in turn only increases polarization which is something that doesn't need to be added to.

Rep. Malliotakis is simply fearmongering here. There is a wide chasm between the US and Venezuela as far as institutions go. Here, our informal institutions and culture prevent the same authoritarian policies from succeeding. This is a common (weak) insult used by right wingers. Democrats are not, on the whole of it, socialist. Here’s a quote: “This same socialist playbook is being brought here to the United States," Malliotakis said. "It is starting with the divisiveness. It is starting with the anti-police movement.”

Rep. Malliotakis is simply fearmongering here. There is a wide chasm between the US and Venezuela as far as institutions go. Here, our informal institutions and culture prevent the same authoritarian policies from succeeding. This is a common (weak) insult used by right wingers. Democrats are not, on the whole of it, socialist. Here’s a quote: “This same socialist playbook is being brought here to the United States," Malliotakis said. "It is starting with the divisiveness. It is starting with the anti-police movement.”

The title says it all, "reject political divisions and warns of consequences posed by a Trump win". That is contradictory sentence if I've ever seen one. That alienates half the country just like Hillary Clinton did in 2016 and I'm not even a Trump supporter. To win over republicans, she mustn't insult them, she needs to lay out more policy and the tone in this article seems to not understand that. Furthermore, the article includes a quote by Harris saying Trump has only ever had one client, himself. To the average reader, they may take it on face value and think the former President is truly selfish and not only is that unfair, that is disingenuous of the Vice President to say so. The same way it would be unfair and disingenuous if Trump said that of Obama. Last thing I'd say, the AP talked about how Trump supporters assaulted police at the Capitol which is accurate but failed to mention that left wing activists did the same thing in the summer of 2020. That paints one side as bad as opposed to the objective truth that both sides have physically assaulted law enforcement.

This news was troubling to me merely because it was not advertised well that it is an opinion article. It wasn't until I read into the article did I realize. The title is misleading. Many other news outlets write "Opinion Article:" before the title to clarify. This could lead to misinformation because of the lack of clarification.

This article is troubling largely due to the misleading title that is intended to rile up readers using an extremely divisive issue that is receiving a lot of attention as of late. Without reading the article, it appears that migrants are to blame for busing services. In reality, a bus and driver shortage in addition to state mandates are causing the busing shortage. An article title like this one is purposefully misleading in order to shift the blame on the specific group the author wants to blame. At a time when many people are easily influenced, seeing a headline like this immediately leads to a rather visceral reaction which can lead to bias before, during, and after reading the actual article.

The article is by NBC and is constantly criticizing RFK jr. in a disingenuous manner. But lets start with what they get right, they rightfully criticizes how claimed hydroxychloroquine worked against COVID even though medical journals have found the opposite to be true. They also pointed out how he said vaccines have probably killed more people than they've helped which is objectively false. For example, the Polio vaccine saved untold millions, perhaps the entire human race from such a horrible fate. However, they do get some things wrong.The article talks about how RFK is anti-vaccine when he has said in a number of interviews and in videos that he supports vaccines he is just hesitant of the long-term consequences. He claims the long-term consequences of things like the COVID-19 vaccine cannot be studied because not enough time has gone by which is absolutely true and I'm vaccinated by the Moderna vaccine. Him advocating for more care and greater oversight of vaccines is not anti-vaccine and may lead voters and people across the globe to think he is saying vaccines shouldn't be taken. Furthermore, he has even said he took the COVID-19 vaccine as did his entire family, but he is understandably concerned about its long term effects.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.