Previous Troubling Reports

The headline of this article is true, Acemoglu did warn about the survival of US democracy. However, the title is formatted to scare people and already influences readers before they begin. It is valid to experience feelings when reading an article, but it is preferable that those feelings are in reaction to the reader's own mind rather than what the writer is manipulating the reader into feeling.

Factually speaking this article is fine. However, it provides an oversimplification of the justice's reasoning for ruling against Trump's new tariffs. There's more detail on Kavanaugh's dissent. The description of Kavanaugh's dissent is also an oversimplification and doesn't make sense from a legal standpoint. This article feels like it's trying to push the dissenting narrative instead of properly explaining why 6 justices ruled the way they did.

This article is very partisan and is only geared towards the left. Though the title is taken from quotes from Obama, this article is not objective. The quote was chosen to grab the most attention from readers by evoking an emotional reaction. It aims to inform the public of opinions and to solidify the opinions of the reader rather than providing them with information to learn. Little was said about the current political climate and the facts of Trump's presidency. The majority of the article was composed of Obama quotes and ended in Obama quotes. This article was not impartial.

This article has a couple of issues that can be seen from the title. First, "felon" Trump is misleading considering he's pardoning them as the President using powers he legally has. Secondly, disgraced is a disputed claims, one of the players pardoned was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

This article has a couple of issues that can be seen from the title. First, "felon" Trump is misleading considering he's pardoning them as the President using powers he legally has. Secondly, disgraced is a disputed claims, one of the players pardoned was inducted into the Pro Football Hall of Fame.

This article was not informative but rather persuasive. It read more like a blog than a news source. It did not include any opposing information and demanded action of readers. They claimed that Senate Republicans had no interest in choosing the nominees and were being "lazy" and the headline even talks of what is "deserved." This is purely subjective and should not be taken seriously.

This article was not informative but rather persuasive. It read more like a blog than a news source. It did not include any opposing information and demanded action of readers. They claimed that Senate Republicans had no interest in choosing the nominees and were being "lazy" and the headline even talks of what is "deserved." This is purely subjective and should not be taken seriously.

This article fails to mention the University failed safety requirements. Instead they paint the narrative that the wind turbine alone caused the bald eagles death.

This article is fine factually, but leaving out that a division of ICE was apart of the 2024 olympics in Paris makes the article feel like it's pushing a narrative. I would recommend less bias sources on this subject matter.

This article is fine factually, but leaving out that a division of ICE was apart of the 2024 olympics in Paris makes the article feel like it's pushing a narrative. I would recommend less bias sources on this subject matter.

The article relies on the current disputed claims made by the DHS. One thing they left out was that the child met up with his father in Texas. Leaving this information out makes it seem like ICE didn't do anything but reunite the kid with his father.

This article is troubling news because it presents a politically charged narrative that shifts the blame for the struggles of rural healthcare onto Democrats without fully contextualizing the real, complex causes. Basically, through highlighting Trump's accuasations and grievances, the article has framed health care as a political weapon instead of a public issue. This type of coverage (also evident in the title) can and will mislead readers and contribute to increased political polarization.