Previous Troubling Reports

This news is troubling to me largely because of the headline. The headline makes it seem as if Judge Judy is saying that Trump being prosecuted is nonsense, or that her specific opinion should show people that his conviction was invalid. Of course Judge Judy knows her stuff as an attorney/judge, she is not the foremost expert on this specific criminal topic and the article title makes it seem that her thought should hold great weight. The headline is also misleading because she does not say that the verdict itself was invalid, but more so that figuring out the crime was difficult. Ultimately, however, he was convicted by a jury of his peers so calling into question the legitimacy of the trial is misleading, especially to people who see that Judge Judy has commented this sort of thing about it.

While this news isn't necessarily directly "fake news," since it reports a real event that took place, this article nonetheless goes beyond the scope of what should be acceptable in news. Clearly an opinion piece, this article claims that retracting a single mask from an exhibit due to cultural concerns constitutes the title "Women Are Latest Victim of Identity Politics." Oxford removed a single piece from a museum. This event does not amount to the exaggerated claims made in the article. The author goes further, attacking academics for their character instead of actual claims or writings they've posted. This article is harmful to the spirit and good-faith of journalism.

While this news isn't necessarily directly "fake news," since it reports a real event that took place, this article nonetheless goes beyond the scope of what should be acceptable in news. Clearly an opinion piece, this article claims that retracting a single mask from an exhibit due to cultural concerns constitutes the title "Women Are Latest Victim of Identity Politics." Oxford removed a single piece from a museum. This event does not amount to the exaggerated claims made in the article. The author goes further, attacking academics for their character instead of actual claims or writings they've posted. This article is harmful to the spirit and good-faith of journalism.

The tone of this article is simply too snide to be unbiased; from the smug "It's been a bad week for border crisis deniers" to the selection of sources which paint illegal immigration as a crisis due to a sample size of a few crimes committed by members of what the article derisively terms a 'migrant crime wave', topped finally by the manifestly ridiculous quote "every crime committed by an illegal immigrant could have been prevented by enforcing our nation’s existing immigration laws.", this article drips with bias and cartoonish outrage,

I feel as though they are misrepresenting the actual support Trump has from LGBTQ voters. They suggest that there are about 10,000 LGBTQ Republicans across the country, suggesting that all of these voters would be casting their vote for Trump. There is no real proof that these voters are actually voting for Trump in the election as many people who identify as Republicans do not support Trump. The article says that they are hoping that 50% of LGBTQ voters will vote for Trump, this is essentially a baseless claim. Yes LGBTQ support went up slightly in 2020, but their overall percentage was still less than 30%. They provide no real evidence that any tactics Trump has used to try and capture these votes have had any material impact on actual voting.

This article from Breitbart seems to be very biased, even by looking at the title one can see that the use of "illegal alien" immediately gives a negative connotation regarding the defendant of the case to the reader. Throughout the article, the author continues to use inflammatory language concerning the defendant of the case. The focus of the article continued to enforce that the alleged gang affiliation of the defendant was central, when in fact the portion of the law that the Supreme Court was analyzing did not have anything to do with that affiliation. The main aspect of the case surrounded marriage in immigration law.

This article from Blaze Media seems to be extremely biased, and it favors Dave Rubin, an employee of the company producing the article. It also is biased against Chris Cuomo, the man who debates Rubin. One of the first red flags is the title, which immediately claims Cuomo was "destroyed" and dubs the U.S. Covid-19 response a failure. Then, just a few lines into the piece, the author asserts that Cuomo "often isn’t right, [but] at least he’s willing to talk about it" (Covid-19). The article concluded with a plug for Rubin's conservative talk show with Blaze Media, showing that the article was simply a promotion for a heavily right-leaning show.

This article from Blaze Media seems to be extremely biased, and it favors Dave Rubin, an employee of the company producing the article. It also is biased against Chris Cuomo, the man who debates Rubin. One of the first red flags is the title, which immediately claims Cuomo was "destroyed" and dubs the U.S. Covid-19 response a failure. Then, just a few lines into the piece, the author asserts that Cuomo "often isn’t right, [but] at least he’s willing to talk about it" (Covid-19). The article concluded with a plug for Rubin's conservative talk show with Blaze Media, showing that the article was simply a promotion for a heavily right-leaning show.

This is troubling news because it is written by someone who is so clearly anti-Trump, and it is evident in this piece. Just from the title alone, the word tout is used with a negative connotation. Additionally, he puts the words tremendous unity in quotation marks, indicating that the author doesn't believe it was as extraordinary as Trump did. The article also mentions that this was the first time Trump has visited Capitol Hill since a pro-Trump mob raided it. Although it might not seem outright concerning, it is not a bright story to be mentioned when it is such a small article, and it doesn't have to do with Trump's meeting.

This entire article is a one-sided attack on Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge. It conveniently ignores the fact that amici are present in many high-profile cases and that Biden-appointed judges have tackled Biden cases. More importantly, the snarky title of "of course she is" compromises trust in judicial systems and integrity. It undermines justice and the presumption of innocence.

This article constantly uses language that could potentially give the wrong idea to people. it shows a clear bias to one side and can be a set for anyone looking for confirmation bias.

I found this article to be extremely pro-republican. While the article is not completey anti-abortion, the article definitely supporting the republican policies. Words like presumptive republican leader, makes the readers have a right leaning bias.