Daily Discussion
This article is troubling because the author is insinuating that the 2020 Election was stolen and that the USPS Board helped do it. The article claims that President Trump must appoint a Republican to the board to balance out opinions. Not all appoints are appointed by the president, which helps eliminate some bias, and not all members of the current boards are Democrats. Additionally, some of the links provided in the article do not work, which limits the articles crediblity.
This is troubling news because of the clear left-leaning bias against Donald Trump and his immigration policies. Because of its obvious bias, this makes it troubling news.
No surprise from the Federalist, but this article shows clear bias and doesn't accurately represent the whole story. Charlie Kirk's life undoubtedly contained impressive and impactful elements, regardless of one's opinion on his political beliefs, such as his grassroots organization and the significant impression he has made on conservative youth. With this in mind, the article is troubling because it only focuses on the positive aspects without commenting on the controversial or inflammatory elements of Kirk's life and career. There was a large mix of emotions in the country following his assassination, some expressing joy about his public murder. I believe it is sick to celebrate the execution of a man for his political beliefs, but this article ignores the fact that many Americans did not mourn his death, as demonstrated by social media following the assassination. The article is one-sided and points to Kirk's achievements as to why he deserved the Person of the Year award from TIME magazine, without considering why TIME would not choose Charlie Kirk. Additionally, it provokes the population that understands Kirk was sometimes inflammatory, and his assassination doesn't necessarily mean he should be revered or martyred. Also important to consider is the hill that this author is fighting for, Person of the Year on TIME magazine, which was awarded to Adolf Hitler in 1938. The insignificance of the award and the clear bias from the author demonstrate an intentionally provocative article containing myriad instances of selection and omission bias.
This is troubling news for me because of the amount of the author's own opinion added into the article. This article is not labeled as an opinion article, yet the author opines on the data that he presents. The article does use credible sources of data and direct quotes from Trump supporters, but the reliability of this information is debatable because of the addition of the author's own bias. The author uses phrases such as "has no idea what the average American buys" and "made things meaningfully worse for people", which may leave the audience with a skewed perspective of the situation.
This article is troubling news because it relies heavily on highly charged language and emotionally provocative framing to convey their perspective--beginning with the sensationalized headline. The headline immediately sets a sensational tone by quoting Trump calling Green a "traitor", which from the start primes readers to anticipate conflict rather than balanced reporting. This article is full of negative wording, insults, personal attacks, and internal/external party hostility. Some examples of inflammatory quotes from the text include "low IQ traitor", "washed up", and "battered wife". Overall, the consistent emphasis on conflict and political chaos over substance has the potential to distort public understanding of this event and amplify division.
