New York City Mayor Zohran Mamdani faced criticism from pro-Palestinian protestors after he attended a vigil to honor Israeli victims of the Oct. 7 attacks.

The Details: The vigil, organized by Israelis for Peace New York, was disrupted shortly after it began by pro-Palestinian protestors. Protestors allegedly shouted, "Mamdani, you can't hide. We charge you with genocide" and "Mayor Mamdani take a stand. Stop the sale of stolen land." They also accused him of being a traitor, a coward and of killing babies in Gaza, according to the New York Times (Lean Left bias). Mosheh News (not rated) reported that some protestors chanted "Long live Hamas" and that Mamdani was also later chased to his car by protestors.

For Context: Wednesday was the third anniversary of the Oct. 7 attack that began the war in Gaza. Earlier in the day, several Jewish leaders denounced Mamdani for a statement he released about the anniversary, which focused mainly on Palestinian suffering and destruction in Gaza.

'Eating Its Own': An opinion in the National Review (Right) argued that the "radical left eats its own, and now, Mayor Mamdani is on the menu." The writer cited an X post from the protest organizer who argued Mamdani was losing support in NYC over his lack of fulfillment on promises about Palestine. They wrote Mamdani "isn't anti-Zionist and pro-Palestinian enough" for his "most radical" supporters and said, "Any support he shows for Israel or compassion he musters up for NYC Jews is a fake expression forced for political gain, but the radical left demands perfection." New York Post (Right) described Mamdani being "berated and booed."

A Balancing Act: Washington Post (Lean Left) described concerns from Jewish leaders that Mamdani's statement downplayed the pain felt by their community. It also included Democrat concerns that candidates opposed to Israel are alienating Jewish voters ahead of midterms. The Post described Mamdani's attempt throughout the anniversary to "balance the emotions felt by both Jewish and Muslim New Yorkers," but that he faced criticism from both sides, including from some Democrat leaders over his comments about Israel. It outlined the timeline of Mamdani's anti-Israel statements this year along with recent legislation to "soothe relations" between his administration and the Jewish community. The Post wrote that the trade-off "underscore[es] the challenges he faces in unifying the city."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

An appeals court in Arizona vacated a man's prison sentence after finding that an AI-generated video played at the sentencing violated his right to a fair sentencing outcome. Outlets across the political spectrum highlighted concerns about AI crossing moral lines in the case.

The Video: In 2025, Gabriel Paul Horcasitas, 54, was convicted of manslaughter and sentenced to prison after fatally shooting and killing Christopher Pelkey in a 2021 road rage incident. During the trial, an AI-generated video of Pelkey, 37, was played, which depicted him forgiving Horcasitas and saying they could've been friends in another life. The video replicated Pelkey's image and voice, while the script was written by Pelkey's sister. During the trial, Maricopa County Superior Court Judge Todd Lang said the video seemed "genuine" and reflected Pelkey's character. Horcasitas was sentenced to 10 ½ years in prison.

Sentence Overturned: On Sept. 30, the court upheld Horcasitas' conviction, but ordered a resentencing, saying the video statement couldn't be considered reliable and that it "clearly impacted the sentencing judge." The court said the AI video crossed a line because it didn't depict a real event or record Pelkey's actual words and was someone else's portrayal of what he might've said. Lang hasn't said whether the AI-generated statement impacted his sentencing decision.

AI and the Legal System: Forbes (Center bias) wrote that the situation "highlight[s] some of the questions surrounding the use of AI beyond a tool for legal research, particularly when technology is used to recreate people or events." It quoted a law professor at Arizona State University who said the AI statement could be "borderline prejudicial because it is guessing what the victim would say." NBC News (Lean Left) emphasized statements from Lang that suggested he was very moved by the AI video during the sentencing.

New York Post (Right) described the video as "eerie" and "a stunt." It explained the court case, State v. Rose, which guided the appeals court in their decision. That case centered on photos of a Phoenix police officer's kids at his grave after he was killed by the defendant. The Arizona Supreme Court had ruled the photos came "uncomfortably close" to prejudice without crossing the line.

'Black Mirror Behaviour': An article from Fashion Times UK (not rated) highlighted online criticism that the video reflected a dystopian society. It cited one user comment that the video was "actual Black Mirror behaviour" and that "We are officially letting technology cross way too many moral lines." Another user wrote, "We need to end this false virtue of forgiving criminals. It's the narcissism of modern morality."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

The Trump administration has proposed changes to who is counted in the 2030 Census, which is open for public comment until October 13.

The Details: The Trump administration in September published a regulation in the Federal register that, if enacted, would exclude undocumented migrants or legal residents with a status lower than a green card from the 2030 Census. The rule would also eliminate certain demographic statistics about race and sexual preference.

"Ensure Fair Representation": Opinion writer Ira Mehlman for Townhall (Right bias) explained that "the Census is more than just an enumeration of the people who are in the United States at the start of each new decade," it is "a blueprint for how Americans are represented in Congress, the number of electoral votes each state wields in presidential elections, how federal dollars are disbursed around the country, and much more." Each Census, according to Mehlman, "has a profound impact on the lives of every American," and thus, "who is counted and for what purposes is important." Mehlman distinguished Trump's changes from earlier constitutional exclusions "in that those were abhorrent forms of discrimination [excluding freed slaves and Native Americans], while the exclusion of visitors and illegal aliens is entirely rational and justified." The Census, according to Mehlman, is an "exercise meant to ensure fair representation and fair allocation of resources for the American people, adding that this "objective can only be accomplished by making a distinction between people who are in America and those who are Americans."

"Decade Long War": Philip Rocco, writing opinion for The New Republic (Left) said "the administration's proposed changes to the 2030 census will harm states and cities," and "the fight to save the Census from Trump starts now." Rocco asserted that the Trump administrations defense of the change is "a mix of bad legal history and a convoluted argument about its need to 'distinguish between foreign citizens in the United states who are counted for apportionment and those who are not counted for apportionment.'" The public comment period, Rocco said, should be used by state and local officials "to document the rule's legal flaws" and "to show the potential consequences of the rule for state representation in Congress and the Electoral College, legislative maps at every level of government, and allocations of trillions in federal and state dollars." Simply "winning in court, however, is not the same thing as protecting the count" Rocco said, explaining that "The second front for state and local officials, then, is investing in trusted, local outreach." Trump's proposed changes are "a continuation of what is now a nearly decade-long war on the national head count," and according to Rocco, "the lesson of the last decade is that Washington alone will not save the census."

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Three years after Hamas attacked Israel on Oct. 7, 2023, the ongoing war continues to shape public debate and international relations.

For Context: Roughly 1,200 Israelis were killed and 251 were taken captive by Hamas during the attack on southern Israel. Since the war began, at least 74,000 people, including roughly 21,000 children, in Gaza have died. Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu has been accused by global leaders of war crimes in the strip, while others say Hamas and Palestinian leaders have intentionally put civilians in harm's way. Meanwhile, shifting international views of Israel have also caused divides among political leaders and civilians alike.

'The Horrors of Oct. 7': In an opinion for The Telegraph (Center bias), Allison Pearson reflected on her conversations with Oct. 7 survivors about the brutality they experienced from Hamas. She paralleled it with demonstrations from pro-Palestine supporters. She called the attack a "genocide" and described instances of infants and children being shot and killed and women being sexually assaulted and beheaded. Pearson wrote, "It is shameful that, on the third anniversary of the heinous massacre, yet again the pro-Pals are granted permission for a party – sorry, protest – in London that can only result in stirring up more anti-Semitism." She also criticized UK leaders for appealing to Muslim voters ahead of elections and described instances where some Muslim men were charged with terror plots against Jews in the UK.

Warnings Ahead of Time: A report from Haaretz (Lean Left) alleged that Netanyahu was notified before Oct. 7 that Hamas was considering a major attack. According to the report, the Israeli military also obtained a Hamas battle plan for Oct. 7 in 2022, but dismissed it as unrealistic. Reuters (Center) reported that some in Israel were protesting "what they view as a lack of accountability for the security failure" ahead of Israel's election day, when Netanyahu will seek a seventh term. NPR (Lean Left) wrote that the security failure and Netanyahu's refusal to take responsibility for it have "become a lightning rod in Israel."

Views of Israel Today: Newsweek (Center) described shifting international relations and negative perceptions of Israel due to the war. It reported that young Americans now viewed Palestinians more favorably than Israelis, "to the extent that, for some, support is seen as an ideological purity test." The outlet asserted, "Hamas lost the war it appeared to think it was starting. But it may have won something else, something its leadership has always dreamed of: a lasting change in how Israel is judged, particularly by those who will one day lead its closest ally."

Reshaping the Middle East: A Wall Street Journal opinion (Lean Right) piece called the ongoing war a "war of redemption." He described Netanyahu's response in the days following Oct. 7, calling him "our greatest wartime leader." The author wrote, "Three years later…Hamas has been decimated in Gaza, Palestinian terror infrastructure has been uprooted in Judea and Samaria, Hezbollah is on its knees, and Yemen's Houthis have been hit like never before. Bashar al-Assad's army in Syria is gone and, most important, the weakened Iranian regime will never assert the same power." Associated Press (Lean Left) wrote the Oct. 7 set "a cascade of events" into motion, including multiple wars, Israel seizing territory in Syria and Lebanon and the US joining Israel in attacking Iran.

Gaza Today: Al Jazeera (Lean Left) described the anniversary as "three years…since Israel launched its genocide against Palestinians in Gaza." The Guardian (Left) shared new photos from Google Maps showing buildings in Gaza before and after Israel's ongoing attacks. It quoted a UN Development Programme special representative in Gaza saying the estimated total of rubble was 61 million tonnes. The Associated Press said the anniversary "brings another day of fear and misery" to Palestinians who live "among the ruins" of the destruction and as "more than half the territory remains in the hands of the Israeli military." It also reported that Israeli strikes continue almost daily despite a ceasefire deal in place.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Conservative Flávio Bolsonaro, son of the house-arrested former president of Brazil, Jair Bolsonaro, won more of the vote than the incumbent progressive President Luiz Inácio Lula da Silva in the first round of Brazil's presidential election. The two will head to a runoff vote on October 25.

The Results: Bolsonaro and his right-wing Liberal Party won 47.03% of the vote while Lula and his left-wing Workers' Party won 45.16%. Notably, three other candidates from parties on the right took 2.18%, 2.24%, and 2.89% of the vote. The remaining candidates accounted for less than half a percent.

'Big Win': Reuters (Center bias) said the "biggest winner" was former President Bolsonaro and said the result makes his son Flávio the favorite to win the runoff. Reuters prominently called the result an "upset" and something that "pundits linked to a right-wing wave sweeping the region and Lula's own campaign missteps." It also described Jair as Flávio's "biggest ally" who "loomed large over the race" despite being unable to appear in public.

'End of an Era': An opinion from The Economist (Left) argued that Sunday's result brings the end of a quarter-century-long era where "a left-wing alliance of trade-unionists, progressive Catholics and academics built a large welfare state and defined Latin America's version of social democracy." It wrote in its subheading, "The Bolsonaro clan promises to align with Donald Trump, and to attack democratic institutions." The Economist described Bolsonaro's campaign as one of "vengeance," noting he promised to free his father and said, "Brazilians have good reasons to reject the PT for its dead-end policies, its own corruption and the lack of fresh leadership. But they also have every reason to fear where that rejection now leads."

For Context: In September 2025, Jair Bolsonaro was sentenced to 27 years in prison and banned from running for public office for his effort to cling on to power after being defeated by Lula in the 2022 election. Previously, Lula served as Brazil's president from 2003 to 2011 and in 2017 was convicted for corruption. He spent 580 days in jail, though his charges were later annulled by Brazil's Supreme Court.

RELATED: Brazilian Supreme Court Sentences Former President Bolsonaro to 27 Years in Prison | AllSides

USAID-Related?: Posts circulated on social media after Bolsonaro's Sunday victory that claimed no left-wing parties have won elections in Latin America since the Trump administration reformed USAID. Donald Trump Jr. wrote, "Since we gutted USAID, the left hasn't won a single presidential election in Latin America. Billions in taxpayer cash were funding NGOs, 'democracy' programs, and activist networks that conveniently always backed the same side. They called it aid but it was election interference." ZeroHedge (Lean Right) wrote in its coverage, "It's fascinating to watch this shift unfold as USAID funding has dried up." It added, "The right has taken advantage of an open window to gain political ground and turn frustration into electoral gains." Writing for UnHerd (Center), David Agren pushed back on the idea. Agren said there is "a kernel of truth" in the theory, but that it "overlooks the fact" that "left-wing" and, in some cases, "anti-American" governments in Latin America either expelled USAID long ago or celebrated its recent demise.

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.

Fox News (Right bias) marked its thirtieth anniversary on Wednesday, begging the question, is the achievement something to commend or condemn?

While one writer elated, "Fox News Channel can look forward to 30 more years. Or – who knows? – 200 more," another lamented, "For the good of the country and history, Fox News can—and will—lose."

RELATED: Fox News Media Bias | AllSides

'Anything But' Fair And Balanced: "Fox News has spent the past 30 years airing a nonstop stream of bile, misinformation, bigotry, and stupidity," contended opinion writer Oliver Willis for Daily Kos (Left). Willis called the network a "unique beast" that is "not to be underestimated" and classified it as "arguably, the most vocal advocate of Republican war plans," a "misinformation clearinghouse for COVID-19," and "a global embarrassment in the aftermath of the 2020 election." He denounced Fox's influence on elections through its conservative bias and "vilif[ication]" of Democrats.

RELATED: Examples of Media Bias and How to Spot Them | AllSides

Willis also wrote of the network's "death grip" on the Republican Party: "There's no better evidence for this than the number of Fox News figures, like Pete Hegseth, Jeanine Pirro, Dan Bongino, and Kimberly Figueroa, who have gone on to serve in the Trump administration" – a policy he said "makes perfect – and unethical – sense." He criticized, "Fox billed itself as 'fair and balanced,' but the network has been anything but."

'Vibrant, Colorful And Often Controversial': "Fox News Channel is 30 years young today, and America – and the world – will never be the same," wrote Steve Cuozzo in a more favorable opinion for New York Post (Right), which notably has the same parent company as Fox. Cuozzo called Fox "a vibrant, colorful and often controversial foil to the liberal and leftist voices that dominate broadcast and cable news." He contrasted Willis in writing, "Alone among televised media, Fox News Channel's reporters and commentators shed doubt on the widely believed animal-spillover theory of COVID-19. They gave well-earned air time to Wuhan lab-leak proponents and stood their ground when assailed by The New York Times [Lean Left] and the rest of the mediasphere."

RELATED: Facts vs Myths: Did COVID-19 Leak From a Chinese Lab? | AllSides

While Willis accused Fox of smearing the left, Cuozzo framed the network as "routinely scoop[ing] its competitors on subjects they prefer to ignore." He contended, "[Fox] clobbers its rivals in the ratings and helps set the daily agenda in corridors of power from City Hall to Washington, DC, to the Kremlin."

For Context: Fox News Channel launched on October 7, 1996, under the leadership of Rupert Murdoch, establishing itself as the third cable news network in the world and juxtaposing CNN (Lean Left) as the first conservative 24-hour broadcast channel. Fox is now the most widely streamed cable news network, reaching over 60 million US homes and over 90 countries. It reached its widest-ever margin between CNN and MS NOW (Left) in late September.

In a rare moment of cross-partisan media solidarity, Fox joined CNN, MS NOW, ABC News (Lean Left), CBS News (Lean Left), NBC News (Lean Left) and Politico (Lean Left) in the White House press pool boycott in September, after the Trump administration banned CNN, MS NOW, and Politico over alleged slander and libel.

RELATED: Fox News Joins ABC, CBS, CNN and NBC in White House Press Pool Boycott | AllSides

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary. Image Credit: Nielsen; chart by Christine Wang/Axios; via Axios.

President Donald Trump announced Monday that his super PAC MAGA Inc. would now be paying for White House television ads that were previously being paid for with taxpayer funds.

The Announcement: Trump via Truth Social said, "The Radical Left is upset with the fact that I am taking Ads, which I consider to be a positive promotion for our Great U.S.A., and paying for them with U.S.A. money. This is a rather standard thing to do but, rather than doing that, although nothing will make them happy, I have decided to do the Patriotic Ads, among others, and pay for them myself, and with money I raised for MAGA, Inc. MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN!"

"Reversed Course": The New York Times (Lean Left bias) said that "the ads were broadcast in the heat of the campaign for the midterms, as Republicans are trying to hold control of Congress." The article added that "at least one of the ads featured footage that originally had appeared in a 2024 Trump campaign video." According to the Times, Trump "reversed course" on the ads after "Democrats—and some Republicans" recently "criticized the ads as a possible violation of federal laws for using taxpayer funds for 'publicity or propaganda purposes.'"

"Repeatedly Defended": The Washington Examiner (Lean Right) highlighted that "Democratic lawmakers and other critics of the administration led the charge in slamming the taxpayer-funded ads," adding that "some Republicans were also critical of them." The article called the ads "pro-Trump," but said that "Trump has repeatedly defended his use of taxpayer funds for the controversial ad campaign, which he denies is promoting himself."

"Will Not Reimburse": Politico (Lean Left) mentioned the criticism coming from some members of both political parties but added that the White House pointed to other presidents' usage of taxpayer-funded ads. The article included examples such as the Bush administration running a television ad campaign for the Medicare Prescription Drug, Improvement, and Modernization Act; the Obama administration using advertising to promote the Affordable Care Act; and the Biden administration's promotions for the COVID-19 vaccine. The article also highlighted that Trump "will not reimburse the federal government" for the ads he ran using tax-payer funds.

RELATED: The White House's Government-Funded Ad Campaign: 'Public Service' or 'Propaganda'?

Written by the AllSides staff (of humans). Learn more. Support our mission. Suggest an improvement to this summary.