Previous Troubling Reports

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The bias is evident in the language, selective evidence, personal attacks, speculative claims, and lack of nuance. The assertion that the media is collectively engaging in a cover-up and is now switching narratives to facilitate Biden’s removal is speculative and lacks concrete evidence. Such conspiracy theories appeal to existing biases without providing verifiable proof. Also by framing the media's coverage of Biden as a coordinated effort to mislead the public, the article fuels distrust between opposing political groups, exacerbating the political polarisation seen in government.

The article has a bias in favor of Biden. The quotes from Healey and Wu--who are the only people quoted in the article--praise Biden's performance in his first presidential term. The article's reliability is also questionable, because it does not include quotes from anyone who dislikes Biden's presidency.

This is troubling because the headline presents the race as already decided even though a recount is going to happen. It also portrays Bob Good negatively, as a stubborn conservative leader.

The title itself demonstrates bias, since it portrays the Associated Press's failure to defend Biden as positive. The bias against Biden is also displayed when the author writes, "Were they even present for last Thursday night’s debate where Donald Trump wiped the floor with Joe Biden?...the publication peddled this masterpiece amid polls showing that three-fourths of the country think Biden is too old and frail to be president..." These statements are also not supported by direct evidence; after all, there are no quotes proving that Trump performed better than Biden at the debate, and none of the polls that are referred to in this passage are provided in the article.

The use of the word "regime" in the title of the article is already concerning. The word regime is often synonymous with the word government, however it's often used in a more negative connotation and is usually associated with authoritarianism. To use it to describe an American administration, regardless of the party in charge of it or the president at the helm, hints at a strong bias against it and can have the effect of influencing people to vilify the current administration or even equate them to more authoritarian rulers overseas. The rest of the article doesn't seem to be much better, as it appears that the author is trying to create a narrative of a liberal controlled corporate media versus a more honest independent conservative media. The article and its author biases are obvious and require no further explanation. What is of greater concern is the effect that a piece like this may have on readers. A reader with a more conservative leaning who may harbor disdain for the administration or feel that many media outlets are dishonest may be pulled further to the right if influenced by an article with this kind of language. Likewise, a more liberal reader may feel disgusted and see people who write this kind of material as an enemy or radical, and in turn be pulled further to the left. In any case, an article like this with its negative language only fosters more polarization and resentment among Americans rather than unity and patriotism.