Previous Troubling Reports

This articles headline presents a definitive statement from a political figure, but excludes crucial context that would be included in the full article. The headline assumes that the reader knows who Lisa Cook is and why she is a "fed governor", a better title choice could include her full title or brief description. The headline also does not explain as to why President Trump would want her to resign or why exactly he would fire her. In addition to the title, there is some bias language throughout the article. The word "fire" is a strong confrontational word paired with the phrase "if she doesn't resign," frames the situation as a direct threat towards her. This framing could appeal to the audience that is strongly in favor of or strongly against this person making the statement, reinforcing existing opinions.

This articles headline presents a definitive statement from a political figure, but excludes crucial context that would be included in the full article. The headline assumes that the reader knows who Lisa Cook is and why she is a "fed governor", a better title choice could include her full title or brief description. The headline also does not explain as to why President Trump would want her to resign or why exactly he would fire her. In addition to the title, there is some bias language throughout the article. The word "fire" is a strong confrontational word paired with the phrase "if she doesn't resign," frames the situation as a direct threat towards her. This framing could appeal to the audience that is strongly in favor of or strongly against this person making the statement, reinforcing existing opinions.

This article uses dismissive terms like “press flack” to describe Gardon and labels Democratic perspectives as an “anti-Trump filter.” Opposing viewpoints are also minimally represented. Other arguments are dismissed and the article does not mention legitimate criticisms of Trump’s approach or California’s perspective.

While the article is not wrong that certain people are pushing for Trump to get a peace prize, it ignores the fact that those mentioned in the article are GOP reps. The article seems to favor the side of the GOP reps, and also assume that peace in Russia and Ukraine will happen soon. While it is possible that that will indeed happen, both the Biden and Trump administrations have repeatedly claimed peace would soon happen, yet that has not been the case yet. While this article is not pushing false information per say, it very much buries the lead about who exactly is pushing for said peace prize. This article is an example of how true information can be framed misleadingly so as to present a biased viewpoint.

In addition to using biased language (“President Trump’s bold leadership is quickly making our nation’s capital safer), this article miscontrues exectuve authority in terms of the limits of power the President has on the federalization of the MPD. While presidents have emergency powers, the federalization of MPD is not clearly authorized indefinitely. Typically, presidents can federalize the D.C. National Guard (since it isn’t under mayoral control), but seizing control of MPD indefinitely would raise major constitutional and legal challenges.

The recent false claim that Starbucks was sponsoring the Republican National Convention is troubling because it shows how quickly misinformation can spread and cause backlash. In reality, Starbucks only provided coffee to first responders through a nonpartisan host committee, and it plans to do the same for the Democratic convention. Still, this viral post framed this as a partisan endorsement, sparking boycott calls and damaging Starbucks’ reputation. This undermines public trust, erodes nuanced political dialogue, and shows how actions like these can be misrepresented online and turned into flashpoints for polarization.

This headline misleads what Clinton actually said by implying that she believes he would be in the running for a nobel prize, when her actual quote says that Trump would like to win a prize. While she did mention nominating him if he was able to produce a solution that doesn't do further harm to Ukraine, with context, it seems like she was poking at Trump's fraternizing with Putin. Article also uses inflammotary language, starting off with "twice failed presidential candidate Hillary Clinton"

This post could be troubling as it immediately attacks President Trump's statements about Ukraine. It says he claimed to know more information, and the article quickly calls this fake news in a seemingly biased way. The language used seems to want to bash the President instead of inform the public.

The most significant shortcomings of this article are that it fails to present opposing sides and all relevant factual information. Firstly, it fails to acknowledge that Palestinians have been in the region far longer than most Israeli settlers. Further, it fails to differentiate between Hamas and the Palestinians. Such is equivalent of not differentiating between American public opinion and US military actions. While the US military can be representative of the American public, much of the American public has still condemned some actions taken by the US military. A Palestinian state does not necessarily mean a Hamas-led state. Lastly, the speaker condemns Hamas for rape, murder, and mutilation. The article takes a supportive stance on this point. But the article fails to mention that Israeli forces have done all of those mentioned above. Notably, much of modern coverage of Israeli forces discusses the terrible conditions Gazans are going through and the number of Palestinian civilian casualties.

This article uses quotes with inflammatory language like “lair,” “nut job,” and “communist” to describe Warren and Mamdani. It only focuses its criticism on Warren’s personal and political history, and shows a dismissive portrayal of Warren’s political endorsement without actual policy critique.

This article uses quotes with inflammatory language like “lair,” “nut job,” and “communist” to describe Warren and Mamdani. It only focuses its criticism on Warren’s personal and political history, and shows a dismissive portrayal of Warren’s political endorsement without actual policy critique.

This article uses quotes with inflammatory language like “lair,” “nut job,” and “communist” to describe Warren and Mamdani. It only focuses its criticism on Warren’s personal and political history, and shows a dismissive portrayal of Warren’s political endorsement without actual policy critique.