Previous Troubling Reports

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.

The article deliberately misleads on both the democrats stance and why they have it. Trump took federal control over DC, an unprecedented step, and has said he intends on taking federal control over multiple other blue cities as well. The Democratic stance is that unprecedented federal control over cities and militarizing crime response is authoritarian, counterproductive, and dangerous. That is not to comment on which stance is right, but the article deliberately misleads on what the left wing belief on the D.C issue is.

The article itself doesn't actually have misinformation, but I thought I did a good job of explaining the misinformation that President Trump is spreading by claiming that D.C. is filled with crime. The article has sources to show that crime is actually down in D.C. despite what President Trump is saying.

This article is troublesome because it paints the redistricting/gerrymandering issue in a one sided light. It paints the Democrats who left the state as fugitives and the article refuses to mention the other side of the issue, which is the gerrymandering that caused the whole situation to unfold in the first place. The tone of the article is also very biased in favor of Texas Republicans.

This article uses inflammatory language to slander supporters of pro-choice legislation, calling them "abortionists". It also reduces the gender affirming care protected under the shield law to "sex changes" without providing examples of types of care. I find this troubling given it appears to be filled more with the authors opinions towards reproductive and gender affirming care rather than informational about what the shield laws actually do.

The Fox News article on Jeanine Pirro's criticism of D.C.'s juvenile justice laws shows significant bias by exclusively presenting her conservative viewpoint, focusing on high-profile violent crimes involving juveniles. It lacks opposing perspectives, data, or context that might support juvenile justice reforms, portraying the laws as overly lenient without addressing the complexities of rehabilitation or the potential benefits of the Youth Rehabilitation Act. The piece selectively highlights incidents to reinforce Pirro's narrative, creating a one-sided argument.

The idea that undocumented migrants being counted in the Census is affecting the apportionment of representative seats (to the benefit of Democrats) is becoming increasingly popular. Unfortunately, this is blatant misinformation. Research published to the NIH shows that since 1980, the absolute maximum # of seats that would have changed if we did not count undocumented migrants is 2. Other research from Third Way determined that there would actually have been no change at all. Additionally, the Cato Institute found that 95% of noncitizen growth in the past several years has been in red states. So, if anyone is benefiting, it is the Republican Party. So, the claim that Democrats have been lax on illegal immigration (also, they have not) in order to get more seats is just conspiratorial speculation.

The language choice in this article clearly shows a strong bias towards Israel, and the article uses terms like "falsely purported," "fake," and "malignant lies,” without sources to back up these claims. The article only presents Netanyahu's perspective, showing his statements as facts, rather than including other perspectives, like those from the New York Times. There are no-counter arguments presented, therefore creating a one-sided argument.

This article uses biased language through its choice of framing and word selection, which may influence readers’ perceptions of the judge and her ruling. For example, the headline says “Biden-nominated judge slaps nationwide injunction,” where “slaps” is a loaded, informal verb that can imply aggression or overreach rather than a neutral legal action. The repeated emphasis on the judge being “Biden-appointed” frames her decision in a partisan context, suggesting political motivation rather than judicial reasoning. By foregrounding these elements and placing them before the legal arguments, the article subtly steers the reader toward viewing the ruling through a political lens rather than focusing solely on the constitutional merits of the case.

This article has since been updated since its posting, and talks about Republican usage of "Kamala is for they/them." President Trump is for you. A play on words has been described as a hateful attack. The source says, "Republicans are reprising a key attack line from last year’s presidential race for elections this year and next, betting that anti-trans messaging will help them counter Democrats running on GOP-led cuts to Medicaid and other parts of Trump’s policy megabill." It is unfair to say that this phrase, one that has been mimicked and reused across other parts of the country, is to blame. The article, while it may have some valid points, seems to portray a clear bias to the Republican party.

The Prime Minister's Office labeled the claim that Trump yelled at Netanyahu as complete fake news =. When such serious sounding confrontations are misreported it erodes public confidence. Also, false claims about influential figures in sensitive contexts like this can sway public opinion.

TIME reported that Google's new AI video tool, Veo 3, makes highly realistic deepfake videos of riots, election fraud, and other politically sensitive scenarios. Although it includes watermarks and safeguards, these can be removed, and such videos risk misleading the public and eroding trust.