Previous Troubling Reports

The title says it all, "reject political divisions and warns of consequences posed by a Trump win". That is contradictory sentence if I've ever seen one. That alienates half the country just like Hillary Clinton did in 2016 and I'm not even a Trump supporter. To win over republicans, she mustn't insult them, she needs to lay out more policy and the tone in this article seems to not understand that. Furthermore, the article includes a quote by Harris saying Trump has only ever had one client, himself. To the average reader, they may take it on face value and think the former President is truly selfish and not only is that unfair, that is disingenuous of the Vice President to say so. The same way it would be unfair and disingenuous if Trump said that of Obama. Last thing I'd say, the AP talked about how Trump supporters assaulted police at the Capitol which is accurate but failed to mention that left wing activists did the same thing in the summer of 2020. That paints one side as bad as opposed to the objective truth that both sides have physically assaulted law enforcement.

This news was troubling to me merely because it was not advertised well that it is an opinion article. It wasn't until I read into the article did I realize. The title is misleading. Many other news outlets write "Opinion Article:" before the title to clarify. This could lead to misinformation because of the lack of clarification.

This article is troubling largely due to the misleading title that is intended to rile up readers using an extremely divisive issue that is receiving a lot of attention as of late. Without reading the article, it appears that migrants are to blame for busing services. In reality, a bus and driver shortage in addition to state mandates are causing the busing shortage. An article title like this one is purposefully misleading in order to shift the blame on the specific group the author wants to blame. At a time when many people are easily influenced, seeing a headline like this immediately leads to a rather visceral reaction which can lead to bias before, during, and after reading the actual article.

The article is by NBC and is constantly criticizing RFK jr. in a disingenuous manner. But lets start with what they get right, they rightfully criticizes how claimed hydroxychloroquine worked against COVID even though medical journals have found the opposite to be true. They also pointed out how he said vaccines have probably killed more people than they've helped which is objectively false. For example, the Polio vaccine saved untold millions, perhaps the entire human race from such a horrible fate. However, they do get some things wrong. The article talks about how RFK is anti-vaccine when he has said in a number of interviews and in videos that he supports vaccines he is just hesitant of the long-term consequences. He claims the long-term consequences of things like the COVID-19 vaccine cannot be studied because not enough time has gone by which is absolutely true and I'm vaccinated by the Moderna vaccine. Him advocating for more care and greater oversight of vaccines is not anti-vaccine and may lead voters and people across the globe to think he is saying vaccines shouldn't be taken. Furthermore, he has even said he took the COVID-19 vaccine as did his entire family, but he is understandably concerned about its long term effects.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures' actions. It shows Obama as mocking and insulting Republicans without bringing forth the full context of what he does. It references George Will's comment of Obama as " pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of Obama's rhetoric. It also mentions that Michelle accused her opponents of racism, without any evidence.

This article distorts the political figures in general. A lot of the statements make Obama look like he is mocking or insulting the republican party; it does not address the full context of his statements. It references George Will's comment of Obama as "pyromaniac" which does not give the full picture of his rhetoric. It also accuses Michelle without clear evidence.

This article has an incredible conservative bias from the title alone and takes the entire article to make fun and negatively comment on the Democratic Party and the DNC. It is extremely biased and paints only a bad picture of the DNC using endless attacks and not taking them seriously.

The reasons why this is troubling all touch on the typical issues with opinion pieces; they're susceptible to ad hominem attacks and seem more focused on attacking the person and not the policy- "(Harris) did not try to ameliorate her voice's nasal quality" and comparing her to an "HR Administrator". While perhaps accurate or amusing, one would only make this comparison if one was sure their audience believed it to be true. Nothing about this piece seems addressed to a neutral audience or like it's making much of a case for anything in particular- Kamala Harris sounds like a schoolmarm, you think she sounds like the worst teacher you had growing up, so she must be- and not to inform or persuade.