Previous Troubling Reports

This news is particularly troubling for the way it displays clear bias against Harris's virality to push a narrative about the Democratic Party's unauthentic methods for gaining su... This news is particularly troubling for the way it displays clear bias against Harris's virality to push a narrative about the Democratic Party's unauthentic methods for gaining support. The author criticizes Harris's "memeability" and left-leaning media outlets such as NYT for celebrating her internet fame. They bring in sources that make the argument that Democrats are operating in a "post-coherence landscape," which is a threat to democracy, however, they don't bring in any sources arguing against this narrative or providing a different perspective. Therefore, it is evident that the author is showing clear bias towards the opinion that Harris's internet fame is damaging to the political landscape. More

This is troubling because it portrays only the failures of Kamala without correctly balancing her strengths.

This is troubling because it simply lists the conspiracies without making clear that they are fake. The headline needs to make it clearer.

This is troubling because it simply lists the conspiracies without making clear that they are fake. The headline needs to make it clearer.

This is troubling because it simply lists the conspiracies without making clear that they are fake. The headline needs to make it clearer.

This is troubling because it simply lists the conspiracies without making clear that they are fake. The headline needs to make it clearer.

This is troubling news because it's demonstrably false; no one with the most elementary knowledge of American policy or political philosophy would term Kamala Harris a "left-wing i... This is troubling news because it's demonstrably false; no one with the most elementary knowledge of American policy or political philosophy would term Kamala Harris a "left-wing ideologue," even her critics. It's all the more embarrassing to see this dreck published in the name of the Examiner's entire editorial board. What's more, the diction and tone of this article make it clear that the authors have no interest in even-handedly assessing Harris' record and calling her an "absolutist", "radical", and a "zealot" when all of those things are demonstrably untrue, risks poisoning honest discussion and inhibits real criticism. More

This article has a clear bias against the Secret Service. It insinuates that the attempted assassination of Trump is an inside job. There is no evidence to support this, and these ... This article has a clear bias against the Secret Service. It insinuates that the attempted assassination of Trump is an inside job. There is no evidence to support this, and these are false claims. More

This article has a clear bias against Kamala Harris. It continually paints her as a liar and insinuates that she will be worse than Biden. However, they have no facts or evidence t... This article has a clear bias against Kamala Harris. It continually paints her as a liar and insinuates that she will be worse than Biden. However, they have no facts or evidence to back these claims up. More

It states that the democratic party purposefully hid President Joe Biden's health from everyone. This is a false claim because there is no proof to support this and they haven't be... It states that the democratic party purposefully hid President Joe Biden's health from everyone. This is a false claim because there is no proof to support this and they haven't been hiding him or his health from anyone, otherwise we would not have seen his poor health. More

Opinion pieces generally should have some level of decorum in the, even if the author thinks they are delivering a harsh truth. The article is filled with snide asides from an aut... Opinion pieces generally should have some level of decorum in the, even if the author thinks they are delivering a harsh truth. The article is filled with snide asides from an author who clearly has an axe to grind with diversity initiatives; “Diversity” is code for specified hiring and promotion quotas based on race, gender, sexuality and similar factors. In practice, it boils down to discrimination. “Equity” sounds like “equality,” an idea Americans like, but it actually means the exact opposite. Under “equity,” we don’t treat people equally but very explicitly treat them unequally in the name of “fair” outcomes — a term that means whatever the powers-that-be want it to mean at the moment. The author's bias is also betrayed by his disclosure of the people he feels are left out of these initiatives: As for “inclusion,” well, when was the last time you saw a “DEI advocate” demand the inclusion of Republicans, conservatives, Christians or white males? They want to include everyone — except the people they don’t like. The author uses rhetorical questions to deliver vitriolic hammer blows of points; one is given the impression that he would like his readers to be cowed into agreement. Articles like these are usually uninformative and best avoided. More

Opinion pieces generally should have some level of decorum in the, even if the author thinks they are delivering a harsh truth. The article is filled with snide asides from an aut... Opinion pieces generally should have some level of decorum in the, even if the author thinks they are delivering a harsh truth. The article is filled with snide asides from an author who clearly has an axe to grind with diversity initiatives; “Diversity” is code for specified hiring and promotion quotas based on race, gender, sexuality and similar factors. In practice, it boils down to discrimination. “Equity” sounds like “equality,” an idea Americans like, but it actually means the exact opposite. Under “equity,” we don’t treat people equally but very explicitly treat them unequally in the name of “fair” outcomes — a term that means whatever the powers-that-be want it to mean at the moment. The author's bias is also betrayed by his disclosure of the people he feels are left out of these initiatives: As for “inclusion,” well, when was the last time you saw a “DEI advocate” demand the inclusion of Republicans, conservatives, Christians or white males? They want to include everyone — except the people they don’t like. The author uses rhetorical questions to deliver vitriolic hammer blows of points; one is given the impression that he would like his readers to be cowed into agreement. Articles like these are usually uninformative and best avoided. More