Previous Troubling Reports

This is troubling to me because it is simply not true. There are many prosecutors and investigators working to prove that this is, in fact, true. Then a judge examines these claims and determines whether they are true or not. During this process, there are several highly qualified people who are working on this case. Despite this, Mark Levin can have access to a large platform and lie on television without knowing all the facts of the case. This is blatant disinformation. Many Fox News viewers will repeat what they hear, and when you believe a lie such as this one, it leaves little room to actually be informed on the issue.

All this talk about this alleged "dirty business" involving Biden and his son with Ukraine is just getting out of hand. Nothing solid has been proven, and no evidence has been shown to solidify such allegations. All we are getting left and right are statements that are just hearsay. This is no different from when Trump tried accusing Hilary Clinton of the emails that Hunt, which, again, was investigated multiple times, and nothing came out of it.

I don't think that this news report is trying to be troubling or include false information, but I think they got a very one sided view of the issue in Ohio. All of the quotes are straight from Biden, and not from the people who actually live in the area. Locals would disagree with every statement in this article, change has been slow and there have been little efforts by the government to actually help the people affected.

While the article does make use of statistics, it has twisted the information in a way that is clearly meant to slander Biden and the Democrats. While reading the text, it becomes increasingly clear that the author is against migration. They described the recent immigration bill that failed to pass the Senate as "deceptive" and "lopsided". It further goes on to blame Biden for letting in migrants that the author believes will decrease wages and take jobs. While it may be true that many Americans find the Southern Border to be an alarming situation, the way that the YouGov survey is interpreted is clearly false and misinformation.

This article provides a very one-sided view of the Israel-Palestine conflict and the current situation in Gaza. It criticizes the way the West is responding to the conflict without providing a balanced report. The piece also makes assumptions about western priorities and does not seek to make objective observations. It would be a more reliable article if it articulated some of the justifications behind actions taken by the U.S. government and its allies, or if it referenced sources other than The Guardian and another Al Jazeera piece.

I found this report to be troubling because the comparisons made are not comparable. When objectively looking at how the govenor has performed, it would be necessary to look at the progress Calironifa has made over a certain time frame. Comparing two different states in this instance only serves the purpose of making one look worse than the other. Florida and California are vastly different states, and there is a clear objective to make California and Galvin Newsom look bad. This leaves the audience with an unrealistic worldview of the situation in Calirfonia. This article confirms Fox News viewers biases against Calironia; however, it does so with porr comparisons and cherry-picked stats.

I found this report to be troubling because the comparisons made are not comparable. When objectively looking at how the govenor has performed, it would be necessary to look at the progress Calironifa has made over a certain time frame. Comparing two different states in this instance only serves the purpose of making one look worse than the other. Florida and California are vastly different states, and there is a clear objective to make California and Galvin Newsom look bad. This leaves the audience with an unrealistic worldview of the situation in Calirfonia. This article confirms Fox News viewers biases against Calironia; however, it does so with porr comparisons and cherry-picked stats.

It's not -too- troubling for me, but the negative words associated with the political figures in this article get quite biased (also backed according to biasly's chrome extension). The use of multiple sources is great though.

This article is clearly very anti- Biden and I feel that it is missing a lot of important information, in an attempt to skew the story towards their side. They also make it seem like Biden's actions were equivalent to Trumps. Additionally, they link other articles bashing Biden throughout the article which takes away the credibility.

This article is clearly very anti- Biden and I feel that it is missing a lot of important information, in an attempt to skew the story towards their side. They also make it seem like Biden's actions were equivalent to Trumps. Additionally, they link other articles bashing Biden throughout the article which takes away the credibility.

The article's author shows a complete negative bias towards Joe Biden regarding his commander-in-chief capability. Recently, President Joe Biden has just concluded he will not be facing criminal charges in his alleged possession of classified documents. The article takes an adverse turn questioning the memory capability of the president using words such as "hazy," "faulty'," or "fuzzy." The article is heavily one-sided towards attacking Joe Biden's capability and fitness. The interviewer's reports about Biden's memory were inappropriate, offensive, and inaccurate. The report is discriminatory and should not have been in a Department of Justice report.

The author's bias is apparent from the title alone and misinforms the reader about the legislation. Jazz Shaw lies to his audience about the proposed legislation allowed thousands of migrants to enter the country illegally. Third party fact-checkers have reported that the bill would bar people from seeking asylum if a border crossing area experienced approximately 5,000 encounters a day. The misinformation and negative tone against the bill and legislators pushing it was designed to mobilize its readers against the legislation. If the author had put his bias aside and analyzed the bill objectively, he would've come to a different conclusion and left the audience with a well-rounded perspective on the bill.