Previous Troubling Reports

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This article is troubling because of how clearly biased it is against Kamala Harris, her work, and the Biden administration generally. A major part of the problem is that the article paints Vice President Harris out to be the sole decider in a number of different situations and places the blame entirely on her. Additionally, it blames all issues on her, but also rejects her alternatives to remedy these issues. Overall, the article is clearly biased against Vice President Harris and an unknowing reader could have the point of view seriously shifted by an article like this.

This is troubling news as it is a very biased and selective article, clearing attempting to paint a one sided picture of Harris' economic strategy. The title is very clickbait like in nature and uses opinionated phrased before even starting the article, revealing where the author stands. Also in the beginning of the article the author refers to "economists" several times, but doesn't specify what economists creating a large generalization. While it does provide several perspectives of economists, they all have strong political affiliations/motivations which make their judgments clouded with political bias.

This news was troubling to me only because it was initially not advertised as an opinion article. Once you click on the article, it says that it is an opinion article but otherwise, it does not. Headlines like this contribute to media bias.

This article highlights personal attacks on Harris and criticisms of her policies. It also underscores Trump's accusations against Harris and Biden. Trump's economic claims and how it is contradicted by recent inflation data is mentioned, it suggests that his statements are part of a broader campaign strategy. There are no arguments from Harris' side so it shows lack of a balanced point of view. Additionally, a lot of the tone used is not serious; it is more sarcastic.

Regardless of whether one agrees with Harris' policy proposals, it does no one good to call price controls "communism" hyperbolically, rate each policy proposal on a scale of 1-5 "hammer and sickles", and then put "economic plan" in scare quotes. The tone of this article is probably explained by the fact that the author is the co-founder of a PAC, Unleash Prosperity, which promotes supply-side economics. Two choice excerpts from their mission statement say more about them than I ever could: "Supply-Side is not, as defamed by its detractors, “trickle-down,” enacting big economic advantages, such as tax cuts, for the rich while workers get scraps. It is “across-the-board.” Unleash Prosperity’s creed, as stated by Adam Smith in Wealth of Nations holds that “It is the great multiplication of the productions of all the different arts, in consequence of the division of labour, which occasions, in a well-governed society, that universal opulence which extends itself to the lowest ranks of the people.” (Emphasis supplied.)" "Unleash Prosperity’s mission is not partisan and not political. Our mission simply is to identify those policies best suited to unleashing prosperity and to educate policy makers on the best practices to achieve equitable prosperity. " - or so they claim.

This article displays misinformation in addition to a heavy conservative bias. First, the author claims that the Biden administration is directly involved in the suspect's release, citing an AP news report on the incident. However, that article does not claim that the Biden administration ordered his release, in reality, his administration had little to do with the situation. The article displays an extremely negative tone and tendency toward the Biden administration throughout, The reader, if only absorbing the information from this article without any outside information, will obtain a warped and incorrect perspective on the situation.

This article displays misinformation in addition to a heavy conservative bias. First, the author claims that the Biden administration is directly involved in the suspect's release, citing an AP news report on the incident. However, that article does not claim that the Biden administration ordered his release, in reality, his administration had little to do with the situation. The article displays an extremely negative tone and tendency toward the Biden administration throughout, The reader, if only absorbing the information from this article without any outside information, will obtain a warped and incorrect perspective on the situation.