Previous Troubling Reports

The headline of this article is misleading because it insinuates that the author wants Trump to run for a third term even though that is not constitutionally possible. If you keep reading the article then you can see how the author explains that it is actually not possible for Trump to run for a third term but most people don't read far enough to see that and will just think that Trump is able to run again.

I found this article misleading because Mamdani's shedding light on the issues his aunt faced after 9/11 does not downplay those who died during 9/11, but rather only attempts to shed light on other issues that surrounded 9/11, like racism against Muslims and people from the Middle East.

Despite framing this as a 'clai,' Hamas has pretty clear reasoning for their incapacity to find the bodies: the levelling of Gaza making it extremely difficult to find the buried remains that Israel is demanding. This is further irresponsible given that Matzav has a different article in which they report on the Red Cross needing to help Hamas find the bodiesl

This news article is troubling because it ignores the large body of credible polls demonstrating how most of America feels about ICE and its recent techniques in enforcing mass deportations. While it is true that Pew Research Center and KFF polls show most Americans would like undocumented immigrants who have recently migrated to America to be deported, these polls also show that most Americans disagree with the recent tactics ICE has employed. For example, the anonymity of masked ICE officers and the deportation of undocumented people who have lived and contributed to America for an extended period are points of critique against ICE that this article completely ignores.

This article is troubling news because the article highlights charged and emotional language from an upcoming/new book. This language provokes emotional reaction rather than focusing on facts. Calling someone a "wimp" for following the law frames lawful behavior as something weak or wrong. Framing lawful behavior in this way can undermine respect for democratic processes and accountability. When political figures, such as a president or former president, use charged language such as this, it can negatively impact public perception and normalize hostility--both of which can further deepen existing political divisions. All in all, this kind of rhetoric misinforms the public by shifting attention away from the seriousness of the January 6th event and toward personal attacks that distract from the real issue at hand.

This was posted within the last few days on MSNBC's website, written by Steve Benen. The article is troubling given its opinion-centered writing. The article discusses how "Trump has embraced a model that allows him to order deadly military strikes against civilians, at a time and location of his choosing, without the approval of Congress." The author suggests that Trump is overusing his power to direct military strikes and killings, as these have resulted in almost 50 civilian deaths so far this year. The reporting does not stay objective or non-partisan, but clearly takes a liberal stance against Trump and his policies. While this is typical of MSNBC, the website should strive for a more neutral stance when reporting, as it significantly undermines the credibility of this article and the website as a whole.

The title suggests that fraud claims only shifted because of Trump's win, but they involve many other factors not just one single issue affecting it. The title is attention-grabbing, but it oversimplifies a complex issue.

To start, the headline is very misleading. It claims Democrats are lying without solid proof. The source used in the article is a conservative media source whose mission is to reform the government. Additionally, the article gives many statistics without any data or source to explain where the numbers came from.

This is troubling news to me because of the way MSNBC has presented it. There is a rather severe left-wing bias within the article, which is in agreement with MSNBC's already standing bias rating. There are several quotes used within the article that come from left-wing politicians, and none from right-wing politicians. This is not necessarily misinformation, but the lack of opposing perspectives may lead the audience to interpret the situation with a skewed perspective. The information is presented with a slant, and the audience is not allowed to have an opinion on their own, and they are instead force-fed what they should think by MSNBC. Again, this does not cross over into overt misinformation, but the omission of opposing points of view gets closer to being misinformant.

This media outlet takes a dissected quote from Jolanda Jones, where she discusses the difficulties of dealing with bullies in politics and uses metaphorical phrases about fighting back. In the CNN interview her words were completely misconstrued and taken to create a false headline. The article itself even states, "A state lawmaker in Texas running for Congress is threatening to cut the throats of her opponents. Literally." This is completely arbitrary, and it is obvious this media source isn't trying to spread truthful information, but feed their agenda against Jolanda Jones. The page itself only shows a screenshot of the CNN interview, and does not provide the full clip where she talks about "cutting the throats of her opponents." News outlets need to be held accountable for spreading false claims, manipulating the truth, and showing direct bias against or for certain politicians.

There has been much false news on social media, such as that undocumented immigrants are losing medical coverage. People who are unaware of the laws and regulations in place can cause a large uproar and fear within those communities. Spreading false narratives not only causes unnecessary anxiety, but also undocumented immigrants have never been eligible for federally funded medical coverage, only for emergency care. The 2025 federal reconciliation law DOES, in fact, affect lawfully present immigrants, who are now facing a large loss of access to federal and subsidized health benefits. However, these changes will not affect DACA recipients, refugees, and those seeking asylum in the US. Slight changes in wording, like that in large headers, can take away from the true story of a situation and take away from the people who are being targeted and affected by this huge issue. All people, whether documented or undocumented, deserve health care, and news outlets should do a better job in capturing the full story with valuable sources, rather than spreading misinformation on such a serious topic.

The headline for this article states a false claim, that the UK, or more specifically Britain, has pledged 40 billion pounds of taxpayer money toward the rebuilding of Gaza. The original number, being €40 billion, was an estimate made to reconstruct the damage the Israeli Defense Forces did to the Gaza Strip. Overall, the true story is that Britain held conversational spaces discussing the rebuilding of Gaza; they did not specifically state that they would fund the rebuilding with taxpayers' money, but rather partnering with private finance companies to bring in private funding. False news like this spreads a false narrative, but it also makes British citizens uncomfortable about where their taxpayer dollars are actually going, whether they support the rebuilding of Gaza or not, especially since Britain is known to be in deep debt that the moment.