Previous Troubling Reports

The linked article asserts that the “Biden White House” lied about cancer risk, but it provides no evidence. Initial publicly available statistics indicated no adverse health effects, yet many East Palestine residents report unusual symptoms after the accident, which has fueled skepticism. It is possible that those early studies were incomplete or biased, but the article’s headline attributes nearly all responsibility to President Biden, ignoring other contributing factors. For example, some health assessments were conducted by firms contracted by Norfolk Southern after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered cleanup of the contamination: “much of the sampling data they use comes from firms contracted by Norfolk Southern, after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered the company to clean up the contamination” (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment-residents-health-issues-norfolk-southern/). That context is absent from the article, which places all blame on the Biden administration. The full situation is more complex.

This CNN article could be troubling because it seems to provide a negative connotation to someone with a different point of view. For example, one bystander stated that they disagree with combining males and females in competition. The article then mentioned this bystander misgendered A.B. Additionally, the article put quotation marks around "biological field" and "biological female" - both of which were unnecessary. The article also mentions research on transgender biological advantages, but does not provide examples or a rebuttal to claims.

This article mentions that the artificial sweeteners used in Diet Coke could put someone at risk of weight gain, but other sources say that a possible risk of Diet Coke is an underconsumption of calories, the opposite of what is being claimed in this article. The article makes many claims about Diet Coke and its ingredients, often saying that these ingredients are linked to certain health effects, but these cannot be verified without a more comprehensive review of the research around the topic.

This article mentions that the artificial sweeteners used in Diet Coke could put someone at risk of weight gain, but other sources say that a possible risk of Diet Coke is an underconsumption of calories, the opposite of what is being claimed in this article. The article makes many claims about Diet Coke and its ingredients, often saying that these ingredients are linked to certain health effects, but these cannot be verified without a more comprehensive review of the research around the topic.

The characterization of budget cuts throughout this article carry negative connotations, using adjectives such as "stark", "deep", "steepest". It focuses on the perspectives of Democrat leaders and the negative consequences of the budget cuts, rather than Trump's motives behind it.

The New York Post article on the Wisconsin judge’s claim of absolute immunity accurately reports her legal argument but does not provide full context about how absolute immunity is limited by law and has been narrowly applied by courts. This omission can mislead readers into thinking absolute immunity is broader than it legally is, potentially downplaying the seriousness of the indictment against her.

The title of this article is slightly misleading. It mentions international students at the beginning, but goes more into Trump's plan to pull finding from Harvard and his plan to create "the greatest trade school system anywhere in the world," without providing any further evidence about how this could be accomplished or the implications for international students.

The title of this article is slightly misleading. It mentions international students at the beginning, but goes more into Trump's plan to pull finding from Harvard and his plan to create "the greatest trade school system anywhere in the world," without providing any further evidence about how this could be accomplished or the implications for international students.

The article seems to suggest that Trump was just taking a path set up by Obama and Biden to pursue action against Harvard, but fails to note how none of the precedent in place that allows Trump to threaten tax exempt status was due to either, it is from a 1980's SCOTUS decision.

The article excludes key information in favor of gathering negative statements regarding Elon Musk leaving his position at DOGE. The title and quotations act as click- and rage-bait, meant to play on emotions with strong language, rather than relaying information. It is inciting a reaction without grounding the situation. Two key facts would influence the interpretations of the statements in the article: first is that Elon Musk is required to leave after 130 days, and second is that DOGE will continue on without him, somewhat weakening the claims that Elon Musk is simply leaving after committing 'performative vandalism.'

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.