Analysis on Fake News: Info Wars vs The Spectator

Info Wars: https://europe.infowars.com/kamala-laughs-hysterically-after-questions-about-ukraine-refugee-crisis/

The Spectator: https://www.spectator.co.uk/article/kamala-invades-poland

The issue the two articles focus on is about Kamala Harris, the vice president of the United States of America, and her response to the situation between Ukraine and Russia. They both emphasize about her laughing after a reporter asks about the Ukraine refugee crisis. 

The InfoWars states in their headline that she laughs “hysterically”, even though in the video the article provided, it seems that it was more an awkward laugh than a maniacal cackle. The article itself is very short compared to the usual standards of a journalism article. It only retells what happens in the provided video, and gives some comments about the VP’s competency. In the end, the article’s title is misleading, the article is unbalanced as it does not include any other information that the readers need to know after they watch the video, and it ends abruptly. It could play into people’s confirmation bias, as it could be shown as an example of the US Government’s competency and its involvement with the ongoing war between Ukraine and Russia.

The Spectator’s title for the article is short, and reads as clickbait and misleading as well. The article is written in a more opinionated tone, contrasting the InfoWars’ semi-formal, nondescript writing. The article focuses on antagonizing Kamala Harris, calling her “the warhead” and goes on about how the administration she is a part of is “senile”. It talks about the supposed hypocrisy in the US’ government actions and describes it as contradictions and mixed messages, though this seems to read as more sarcasm than facts. The article provides some facts to back up its claim, however it is phrased in a very informal and biased way. This article could definitely be used for confirmation bias, as it does provide a lot of opinions and evidence to back it up. The article is more balanced than the InfoWars’, it has an opening of a short descriptions of what happened and how Kamala Harris was involved, then goes on to further discuss the issue.