Previous Troubling Reports

This article is troubling news because of the highly charged and emotionally loaded language used throughout, which strongly shapes the reader's perception of Trump's actions and intentions. Words like "brute force", "retribution", "ravenous bids", "the agitator", and "global domination" suggest authoritarian behavior and expanionist ambitions, setting a dramatic and ominous tone for the article. The headline also frames Trump's presidency as aggressive and dangerous before the reader even engages with the content. All in all, the article demonstrates clear bias through its repeated use of emotionally charged language that frames Trump's actions in a consistantly negative and alarming way.

This article is troubling news because of two reasons. First, the article's sensationalized, clickbait headline frames the situation dramatically before readers even engage with the details--which can potentially influence readers' perception. Second, the emotionally charged language used within the article to report on what is happening in Minnesota create a sense of urgency and conflict rather than presenting the investigation in a netural, factual way. Some examples of these phrases include "confusion and chaos", "surge of federal agents", and "political vendetta". Overall, the language used emphasizes tension and controversy instead of focusing on straightforward reporting of the events in Minnesota.

The article tries to imply Trump floated the idea of capturing Putin, when the video provided shows Trump said he didn't think that would ever be necessary. That may not be an explicit, clear-as-day "no I would never do that," but it's enough where we shouldn't be publishing articles implying he would ever actually do that.

This article cheerleads the current state of the US economy. Meanwhile, the unemployment rate has risen, 2025 was the slowest non-recession year for job growth since the early 2000s, and a significant majority of Americans feel that the economy is in poor shape.

I think the title of this article speaks for itself.

This article from MSNBC compares ICE to the gestapo and refers to the "MAGA horde." While I have enormous issues with ICE, I think making comparisons to the Nazis requires a very high bar. I still think there's a level of difference between going door to door for illegal citizens versus going door to door for anyone (citizen or noncitizen) who's outspoken as in Nazi Germany.

This extremely biased article from Breitbart refers to Renee Good as a crazed left-wing anti-ICE activist and says the released video definitively proves the officer had no choice but to shoot her.

The description says Renee Good block the road for "several minutes" but the clip we are shown is less than a minute long, with no link to a longer video. Either they lied in the description or they didn't do their full reporting.

The description says Renee Good block the road for "several minutes" but the clip we are shown is less than a minute long, with no link to a longer video. Either they lied in the description or they didn't do their full reporting.

This article from Fox News is essentially a highlight reel of the military and air force strength used by the US in the recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro. The focus on only the positive aspects of US military power prevents the article from staying objective and creates a right-leaning bias. The article leaves out the negative aspects of the capture and the possible oil reserve motivations, making it troubling news.

This article is troubling because it strawmans the opposition argument against Donald Trump's intervention in Venezuela. I understand the central point of this article is that some people claim Trump's actions are unprecedented and unseen before in American politics, which is clearly untrue. But many others are making more substantive disagreements against Trump's involvement in Venezuela, specifically for their large oil reserves. The article mentions nothing about the possibility that the oil reserves in Venezuela are the main reason the US is intervening. Anecdotally, I lived in South America for many years and understand that Maduro's regime has been heinous and destructive to the nation, but the idea that Trump is acting on humanitarian values over oil profits is ridiculous given the span of Maduro's atrocities over the last decade. There are many more effective and well-researched opposition arguments against Trump's actions in South America these past months, none of which are mentioned in this article. Foreign policy articles must involve a comprehensive understanding of multiple economies and political structures to provide a thorough opinion on the subject. This article clearly refutes untrue claims but does not defend against any claims that have supportive evidence to back it up.

This article is troubling because it strawmans the opposition argument against Donald Trump's intervention in Venezuela. I understand the central point of this article is that some people claim Trump's actions are unprecedented and unseen before in American politics, which is clearly untrue. But many others are making more substantive disagreements against Trump's involvement in Venezuela, specifically for their large oil reserves. The article mentions nothing about the possibility that the oil reserves in Venezuela are the main reason the US is intervening. Anecdotally, I lived in South America for many years and understand that Maduro's regime has been heinous and destructive to the nation, but the idea that Trump is acting on humanitarian values over oil profits is ridiculous given the span of Maduro's atrocities over the last decade. There are many more effective and well-researched opposition arguments against Trump's actions in South America these past months, none of which are mentioned in this article. Foreign policy articles must involve a comprehensive understanding of multiple economies and political structures to provide a thorough opinion on the subject. This article clearly refutes untrue claims but does not defend against any claims that have supportive evidence to back it up.