Previous Troubling Reports

This article is extremely biased against the democrats and is extremely right leaning. This article clearly states how Biden is on the losing end of the presidential race. Thiis article does not just portray the details of the debate, but the article defenitely has a biased against the democratic party. The author also uses a bunch of agist words against Biden claiming he is too old to run as presidents.

At the end of the article, the author informs the reader that Biden stepping aside as the Democratic presidential nominee would bring the race into "uncharted territory." However, this is misinformation. It has occurred before when Lyndon B Johnson stepped down from the presidential race. It is ultimately misleading to imply that this sort of political occurrence is totally unprecedented.

This entire article frames the Trump re-election campaign as a nefarious one lurking around. Lines such as "Republicans are now plotting how to hit Harris" and a supposed quote from a Trump ally of "chaos is our friend" are neither sourced nor explained. On the other hand, it uses a lot of words like "Democratic panic" and "Trump's team is scrambling" without evidence that these two teams are not prepared.

This is troubling because it paints Trump extremely positively and Jack Smith extremely negatively. It does balance the two sides.

The fact that a news source for the university itself who held a rally for Donald Trump had to independently verify his claims during such is astounding. What's more troubling, however, is not the fact that they felt the need to do so, but the fact that this bipartisan, moderate news source discerned over 40 false claims made. It goes to show we must be more wary of the information fed to us.

This is a classic example of authors using loaded terms to prime their audience. One should be wary of any buzzwords like "lawfare" that don't really mean anything useful but are often used simply to poison the waters of decent discourse. Also, the article unhelpfully focuses on what the ruling means for Trump's personal situation instead of the worrying precedent this sets, demonstrating the author's bias.

I found it concerning that the author was able to write an article about how unaffordable Obamacare is, but could not site any data to prove this assertion. But I think the most misleading thing about this is that Obamacare is extremely complex, healthcare inflation has been higher than the average rate of inflation for decades and The solution was not explained either. This kind of news offers no real factual information while at the same time confirming conservative bias which contributes to polarisation.

I found it concerning that the author was able to write an article about how unaffordable Obamacare is, but could not site any data to prove this assertion. But I think the most misleading thing about this is that Obamacare is extremely complex, healthcare inflation has been higher than the average rate of inflation for decades and The solution was not explained either. This kind of news offers no real factual information while at the same time confirming conservative bias which contributes to polarisation.

Social media spread the false report that tall black fences were surrounding and blocking access to the Supreme Court building when in reality this video was from 2022. These fences were put up when there was a leaked draft that signaled the overturning of Roe v. Wade. But, users are making it seem that this is current to try and spread the idea that they are preparing for chaos. However, the building does not have these blockades currently and are open at their regular public hours.

I find this troubling because the reporter clearly has an agenda which she is using this story to push. She does not take into consideration the facts that Lawmakers reiterate and this is somewhat misleading. It is true that illegal immigrants commit crime at a lower rate than native born citizens, yet this reporter does that acknowledge this fact. This could be very misleading to many veiwers who are not aware of this fact

The title itself initially caught my eye, although calling the protesters "anti-Israel" probably isn't much of a stretch. These protestors are opposed to Israel's government, after all. But the subhead made my bias radar ping. Fox News-- which already has a reputation for being quite biased-- called these protestors pro-Hamas. Obviously, someone can have a personal philosophy that links some opponents of Israel's government to the support of Hamas. At the end of the day, however, accusing an entire group of supporting a terrorist organization when they've said nothing to indicate this is simply wrong, and shows major bias. Fox News seems to be very against these protestors, making biased generalizations about them and offering no objectivity when it comes to their coverage. This issue alone indicates potential misinformation, and very clear right-wing bias that should be noted.

This article makes it seem certain that Biden will not be the 2024 Democratic nominee, even though that is not definite yet. It is misleading since it makes it seem that Biden has already stepped down.