Previous Troubling Reports

This article uses pretty loaded language to make its point and comes off as biased in some parts. Right from the start, it describes Andrew Cuomo with harsh words like “grievance,” “paranoia,” and an “imperial sense of entitlement,” which makes it clear the author doesn’t just want to report the facts, but wants you to see Cuomo in a really negative way. It also calls second-generation politicians “nepo babies,” which is a pretty mocking term and shows a lack of neutrality. The writer praises newer politicians as having “vitality and vigor” while mocking Cuomo’s campaign as just a tired repeat. Even Ron DeSantis’s possible plan to support his wife as a political successor is called a “scheme,” which makes it sound shady without much explanation. Overall, the article clearly favors fresh, younger candidates and makes older, well-known politicians sound out of touch or selfish, which shows the author has a strong opinion rather than staying neutral.

The article “The Slow, Painful Death of the American Political Dynasty” uses pretty loaded language to make its point and comes off as biased in some parts. Right from the start, it describes Andrew Cuomo with harsh words like “grievance,” “paranoia,” and an “imperial sense of entitlement,” which makes it clear the author doesn’t just want to report the facts, but wants you to see Cuomo in a really negative way. It also calls second-generation politicians “nepo babies,” which is a pretty mocking term and shows a lack of neutrality. The writer praises newer politicians as having “vitality and vigor” while mocking Cuomo’s campaign as just a tired repeat. Even Ron DeSantis’s possible plan to support his wife as a political successor is called a “scheme,” which makes it sound shady without much explanation. Overall, the article clearly favors fresh, younger candidates and makes older, well-known politicians sound out of touch or selfish, which shows the author has a strong opinion rather than staying neutral.

Within this article the opening phrase by the author signifies a framing reinforcing a partisan narrative stating, "leaves no doubt that she stands with President Trump and the conservative supermajority". In addition, using words such as "dramatic win" stresses significance. Also most of the sources are political such as quotes from President Trump and conservative individuals meaning there is limited coverage of other sources. The article leans into portraying Barrett's actions as political not very judicial.

This article uses charged language throughout the article, like "the Left's dangerous rhetoric." It also has a very limited amount of opposite sources, but many quotes that justify that position it is attempting to make. This article blames the left for their polarized politics, without considering that the right is equally as polarized and also makes very strong statements against left leaning politicians.

This article describes the recent decision held by the Supreme Court on Friday June 27th over LGBTQ+ books in schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court sided with parents who objected LGBTQ-themed books and were seeking the option to remove their children from the classroom for religious reasons. This article definitely has a left-leaning perspective/bias. Most of the quotes included throughout the piece were from liberal public figures or liberal journalists. In addition, the article didn’t fully explain the effect of this ruling. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court granted the parents a preliminary injunction, but ultimately sent the case back to the lower courts for a full hearing (remanded the case). By leaving out this key piece of information, this article is somewhat misleading to readers. The author also states that this court case “could potentially implement policies similar to Florida’s infamous ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law across United States public schools.” While a lot of these broad statements are made throughout the article, I view them more as opinions rather than fact. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article shares how U.S. strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites. However, other sources say the exact opposite. It is confusing to know whether the strikes did some damage or if this source, often left-leaning, has chosen biased sources to back up the narrative they'd like to portray.

This article shares how U.S. strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites. However, other sources say the exact opposite. It is confusing to know whether the strikes did some damage or if this source, often left-leaning, has chosen bias sources to back up the narrative they'd like to portray.

Honestly, this article is deeply concerning. The amount of fear-based propaganda is extraordinary. It’s also quite revealing in its religious discrimination, especially against Muslims. First of all, Europe isn’t unlivable because of immigrants—the real issues are the lack of housing and the rising cost of food. With limited land and densely packed cities, many European countries have struggled to house their own citizens since the early 2000s. The article opens with the line: “Now that a critical mass of voters in our largest city have decided to support a socialist Muslim rapper from Uganda who openly despises every founding principle of this country…” a sentence loaded with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racially charged implications. It then goes on to make wild claims that New York, under this so-called "Muslim socialist" ideology, would “eliminate the police department,” “nationalize the grocery stores,” and “fund sex changes for children.” These statements are not only exaggerated but have no grounding in actual policy proposals. To claim that New York would become “completely uninhabitable” under such a platform is irresponsible. Rather than promoting discussion or understanding, this kind of rhetoric fuels fear, division, and misinformation.

Honestly, this article is deeply concerning. The amount of fear-based propaganda is extraordinary. It’s also quite revealing in its religious discrimination, especially against Muslims. First of all, Europe isn’t unlivable because of immigrants—the real issues are the lack of housing and the rising cost of food. With limited land and densely packed cities, many European countries have struggled to house their own citizens since the early 2000s. The article opens with the line: “Now that a critical mass of voters in our largest city have decided to support a socialist Muslim rapper from Uganda who openly despises every founding principle of this country…” a sentence loaded with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racially charged implications. It then goes on to make wild claims that New York, under this so-called "Muslim socialist" ideology, would “eliminate the police department,” “nationalize the grocery stores,” and “fund sex changes for children.” These statements are not only exaggerated but have no grounding in actual policy proposals. To claim that New York would become “completely uninhabitable” under such a platform is irresponsible. Rather than promoting discussion or understanding, this kind of rhetoric fuels fear, division, and misinformation.

This post accuses liberals of pushing culture of death and frames those who are prochoice as baby murderers. It also takes a hot topic about whether it is okay to euthanize you dying dog by shooting it instead of taking it to the vet as a partisan debate, and anyone who is pro-choice as a hypocrite. This is clearly a heavily slanted, loaded article.

The article uses a contentious issue as a platform to propagate insults and loaded phrasing against political sides the author stands against. It makes statements without supporting them. While they do work to support the claim in the headline itself with numbers, the article is premature in its celebration, considering the relative recency of President Trump's immigration policies. The extremely loaded language and loosely supported statements make this troubling news.

The article uses a contentious issue as a platform to propagate insults and loaded phrasing against political sides the author stands against. It makes statements without supporting them. While they do work to support the claim in the headline itself with numbers, the article is premature in its celebration, considering the relative recency of President Trump's immigration policies. The extremely loaded language and loosely supported statements make this troubling news.