Previous Troubling Reports

I feel as though they are misrepresenting the actual support Trump has from LGBTQ voters. They suggest that there are about 10,000 LGBTQ Republicans across the country, suggesting that all of these voters would be casting their vote for Trump. There is no real proof that these voters are actually voting for Trump in the election as many people who identify as Republicans do not support Trump. The article says that they are hoping that 50% of LGBTQ voters will vote for Trump, this is essentially a baseless claim. Yes LGBTQ support went up slightly in 2020, but their overall percentage was still less than 30%. They provide no real evidence that any tactics Trump has used to try and capture these votes have had any material impact on actual voting.

This article from Breitbart seems to be very biased, even by looking at the title one can see that the use of "illegal alien" immediately gives a negative connotation regarding the defendant of the case to the reader. Throughout the article, the author continues to use inflammatory language concerning the defendant of the case. The focus of the article continued to enforce that the alleged gang affiliation of the defendant was central, when in fact the portion of the law that the Supreme Court was analyzing did not have anything to do with that affiliation. The main aspect of the case surrounded marriage in immigration law.

This article from Blaze Media seems to be extremely biased, and it favors Dave Rubin, an employee of the company producing the article. It also is biased against Chris Cuomo, the man who debates Rubin. One of the first red flags is the title, which immediately claims Cuomo was "destroyed" and dubs the U.S. Covid-19 response a failure. Then, just a few lines into the piece, the author asserts that Cuomo "often isn’t right, [but] at least he’s willing to talk about it" (Covid-19). The article concluded with a plug for Rubin's conservative talk show with Blaze Media, showing that the article was simply a promotion for a heavily right-leaning show.

This article from Blaze Media seems to be extremely biased, and it favors Dave Rubin, an employee of the company producing the article. It also is biased against Chris Cuomo, the man who debates Rubin. One of the first red flags is the title, which immediately claims Cuomo was "destroyed" and dubs the U.S. Covid-19 response a failure. Then, just a few lines into the piece, the author asserts that Cuomo "often isn’t right, [but] at least he’s willing to talk about it" (Covid-19). The article concluded with a plug for Rubin's conservative talk show with Blaze Media, showing that the article was simply a promotion for a heavily right-leaning show.

This is troubling news because it is written by someone who is so clearly anti-Trump, and it is evident in this piece. Just from the title alone, the word tout is used with a negative connotation. Additionally, he puts the words tremendous unity in quotation marks, indicating that the author doesn't believe it was as extraordinary as Trump did. The article also mentions that this was the first time Trump has visited Capitol Hill since a pro-Trump mob raided it. Although it might not seem outright concerning, it is not a bright story to be mentioned when it is such a small article, and it doesn't have to do with Trump's meeting.

This entire article is a one-sided attack on Cannon, a Trump-appointed judge. It conveniently ignores the fact that amici are present in many high-profile cases and that Biden-appointed judges have tackled Biden cases. More importantly, the snarky title of "of course she is" compromises trust in judicial systems and integrity. It undermines justice and the presumption of innocence.

This article constantly uses language that could potentially give the wrong idea to people. it shows a clear bias to one side and can be a set for anyone looking for confirmation bias.

I found this article to be extremely pro-republican. While the article is not completey anti-abortion, the article definitely supporting the republican policies. Words like presumptive republican leader, makes the readers have a right leaning bias.

There are a number of word choices in the article that seem quite incendiary that show bias from the author. Towards the beginning of the article for example, they use the phrase "attempted coup" to describe the Capitol riot of January 6th. Other word choices include the use of "deranged" and "nonsensical" to describe arguments made by Donald Trump's lawyers, and the use of the phrase "sloppy originalism" to describe how Justice Clearance Thomas interprets the Constitution. The use of this kind of phrasing is concerning, as it only deepens the polarization already felt in modern American politics and does not help bridge that gap. And even though this article is label as an opinion piece, the Daily Beast is supposed to be a news website that simply reports news, not rhetoric.

There are a number of word choices in the article that seem quite incendiary that show bias from the author. Towards the beginning of the article for example, they use the phrase "attempted coup" to describe the Capitol riot of January 6th. Other word choices include the use of "deranged" and "nonsensical" to describe arguments made by Donald Trump's lawyers, and the use of the phrase "sloppy originalism" to describe how Justice Clearance Thomas interprets the Constitution. The use of this kind of phrasing is concerning, as it only deepens the polarization already felt in modern American politics and does not help bridge that gap. And even though this article is label as an opinion piece, the Daily Beast is supposed to be a news website that simply reports news, not rhetoric.

This news is troubling, as it shows a heavy bias against the left. The article continuously reiterates the idea that Democrats are lying to the people and only appeal to the voters for their benefit. Much of the language in this article is very biased and is conveyed as facts.

This article offers a facade that it is somewhat neutral by way of the author seemingly agreeing with the White House at time regarding "cheapfakes", aka altered videos or images of Biden that are aimed to misconstrue what occurred. Nevertheless, the utter bias of the author wholeheartedly comes through, where he slams Biden for his incompetencies or states that even though the video may be altered, Biden clearly is doing something wrong one way or another. Regardless of any factual information regarding Biden's health, the article promotes misinformation documents as legitimate.