Previous Troubling Reports

I found the headline of this article to be misleading, as the article characterizes a few of the Democratic candidates in the recent elections as extremists, while also criticizing the backgrounds of previous Democratic leaders. While I understand the criticisms of the background of various Democratic politicians, I think it is somewhat hyperbolic to call them violent extremists. Furthermore, the headline insinuates that violent extremists are what Democrats want; I find this to be an over-exaggerated mischaracterization.

This is troubling for me because of the heavy amount of opinion within the article. MSNBC is known for having a heavy left-leaning bias, and this article is a perfect example of that. While there may be no actual instances of misinformation, it is the amount of opinion within the article that I find worrying. The title itself signals a clear alignment with the left, and already pushes the audience into thinking a certain way, even before reading the article itself. Within the articles there are quotes such as "the Trump administration is seeking to maximize the suffering of low-income Americans", which are very harsh accusations. The MSNBC writers may believe that this is correct, but these statements are ones that the public may take as truth, not realizing that there are other perspectives to be heard.

The article itself does not have any misinformation or fake news but Trump's idea of sending checks to everyone thanks to his tariff policies is likely not going to happen. As the article explained, he would need congress's approval and he is most likely not getting that as they are very divided at the moment. Therefore, people reading these news would likely just go off what he claims he is going to do and now what he is actually able to do.

This MSNBC article is troubling because of its strong liberal bias. It bashes President Donald Trump's reaction to a man fainting during a recent Oval Office meeting. The author claims the image of Trump looking forward with the man on the ground behind him is representative of his ignoring of the needs of the American people in light of the government shutdown. A quote says, "Trump’s reaction to the situation was emblematic of a much larger issue within his administration: the tendency to turn its back on those in need." This clearly shows the author's liberal bias and makes it unreliable, troubling news.

This article tries to paint the Mexican president as a bad politician for saying that she will not use the power of the government to kill citizens.

This article may not be "fake news" per se, but it is certainly biased. It uses a lot of charged language such "hungry families" and characterizing the Trump admin's moves as chaotic.

This article is not so much misinformation as it is an obvious extension of in-group politics. The author of this article has clearly chosen a team they are rooting for, making the article initially biased to the audience. Not to downplay any of the current Republican administration's actions that have led to the recent government shutdown, those are supported and apparent, but the author has lost sight of compromise in this delicate situation. Democrats have most definitely played a role in the current government shutdown, even denying specific Republican efforts to end the shutdown, as Republicans have done to Democrats, as well. This issue is primarily partisan and concerns the allocation of funds to different institutions, largely in the health-care sphere, causing both parties to disagree with bipartisan compromises. Republicans blame Democrats for stuffing the health-care funds with partisan policies, and Democrats claim Republicans are not concerned with effective health-care spending. The answer about which party is more liable for this government shutdown is much more nuanced than this article would claim, and both sides are worthy of scrutiny.

What caught my eye was the article's title, which uses emotionally charged language and exaggerates the situation at hand. Using phrases such as "brace for a hungry weekend" suggests (or eludes to) imminent widespread hunger, even thought the actual article text later clarifies that the appeal process is underway with only partial SNAP benefit payments being delayed. The title uses language that invokes fear and blame instead of just neutrally explaining the routine legal context of the issue. This deliberate decision to make the title more "clickbait-worthy" makes the article, at first glance, feel more sensational--which might end up misleading readers about the real scope of the situation, leading to skewed/misled opinions.

Anytime the word "censorship" is used in an article heading I immediately question whether the piece may be biased or sensationalized due to how loaded the term has become within our society. Buzzwords like "censorship" are often chosen to be inserted into media articles/titles to provoke a strong emotional response from readers while simplifying or dramatizing the issue being reported--both of which can distort events and skew public opinion. This article is reporting on a leaked, internal memo by Michael Prescott. This memo alleges that the BBC engaged in "effective censorship" of certain perspectives relating to the LGBTQ community. While I absolutely disagree with silencing peoples' voices, the article's framing uses dramatic language that heightens the emotional stakes and suggests a strong wrongdoing without definitive proof. Using Internal memos and staff reports as sources (like what this article did) can reflect individual bias or partial viewpoints, as internal emails and opinions do not automatically equate to editorial policy. So, it feels unfair to label this situation with such charged language and definitive blame when there's not enough evidence to confirm/validate that any offense was actually committed in the first place.

Anytime the word "censorship" is used in an article heading I immediately question whether the piece may be biased or sensationalized due to how loaded the term has become within our society. Buzzwords like "censorship" are often chosen to be inserted into media articles/titles to provoke a strong emotional response from readers while simplifying or dramatizing the issue being reported--both of which can distort events and skew public opinion. This article is reporting on a leaked, internal memo by Michael Prescott. This memo alleges that the BBC engaged in "effective censorship" of certain perspectives relating to the LGBTQ community. While I absolutely disagree with silencing peoples' voices, the article's framing uses dramatic language that heightens the emotional stakes and suggests a strong wrongdoing without definitive proof. Using Internal memos and staff reports as sources (like what this article did) can reflect individual bias or partial viewpoints, as internal emails and opinions do not automatically equate to editorial policy. So, it feels unfair to label this situation with such charged language and definitive blame when there's not enough evidence to confirm/validate that any offense was actually committed in the first place.

Anytime the word "censorship" is used in an article heading I immediately question whether the piece may be biased or sensationalized due to how loaded the term has become within our society. Buzzwords like "censorship" are often chosen to be inserted into media articles/titles to provoke a strong emotional response from readers while simplifying or dramatizing the issue being reported--both of which can distort events and skew public opinion. This article is reporting on a leaked, internal memo by Michael Prescott. This memo alleges that the BBC engaged in "effective censorship" of certain perspectives relating to the LGBTQ community. While I absolutely disagree with silencing peoples' voices, the article's framing uses dramatic language that heightens the emotional stakes and suggests a strong wrongdoing without definitive proof. Using Internal memos and staff reports as sources (like what this article did) can reflect individual bias or partial viewpoints, as internal emails and opinions do not automatically equate to editorial policy. So, it feels unfair to label this situation with such charged language and definitive blame when there's not enough evidence to confirm/validate that any offense was actually committed in the first place.

Anytime the word "censorship" is used in an article heading I immediately question whether the piece may be biased or sensationalized due to how loaded the term has become within our society. Buzzwords like "censorship" are often chosen to be inserted into media articles/titles to provoke a strong emotional response from readers while simplifying or dramatizing the issue being reported--both of which can distort events and skew public opinion. This article is reporting on a leaked, internal memo by Michael Prescott. This memo alleges that the BBC engaged in "effective censorship" of certain perspectives relating to the LGBTQ community. While I absolutely disagree with silencing peoples' voices, the article's framing uses dramatic language that heightens the emotional stakes and suggests a strong wrongdoing without definitive proof. Using Internal memos and staff reports as sources (like what this article did) can reflect individual bias or partial viewpoints, as internal emails and opinions do not automatically equate to editorial policy. So, it feels unfair to label this situation with such charged language and definitive blame when there's not enough evidence to confirm/validate that any offense was actually committed in the first place.