Previous Troubling Reports

There is slight misinformation and biases within this article by Politico. First off the article claims Elon Musk was the "former leader" of a government department named DOGE, which is false. He has, however, been associated with a hypothetical "Department of Government Efficiency" concept is proposed by many political figures. In addition, the articles references people like Representative Pete Sessions and Elon Musk are used to lend a false credibility to the fictional premise.

There is slight misinformation and biases within this article by Politico. First off the article claims Elon Musk was the "former leader" of a government department named DOGE, which is false. He has, however, been associated with a hypothetical "Department of Government Efficiency" concept is proposed by many political figures. In addition, the articles references people like Representative Pete Sessions and Elon Musk are used to lend a false credibility to the fictional premise.

There is slight misinformation and biases within this article by Politico. First off the article claims Elon Musk was the "former leader" of a government department named DOGE, which is false. He has, however, been associated with a hypothetical "Department of Government Efficiency" concept is proposed by many political figures. In addition, the articles references people like Representative Pete Sessions and Elon Musk are used to lend a false credibility to the fictional premise.

I think the headline speaks for itself in terms of misinforming the reader. It is not just the misleading headline that is disturbing, but what this provocative statement connotes in terms of what is acceptable: if the Democratic Party is a terrorist organization, then any form of suppression and violence is justifiable.

This news article is attempting to link Newsom/Pritzker comments about a social media trend around Trump to Charlie Kirk's assassination, which is completely unrelated.

There is nothing inherently misinformant within this article, but I do believe that the opinion within it can be unfair to other perspectives. There are many people who support Trump's immigration policies and many who don't, and this article does not. The information is helpful, but the bias within the article may tweak things so that the reader comes out with a shifted viewpoint.

There is nothing inherently misinformant within this article, but I do believe that the opinion within it can be unfair to other perspectives. There are many people who support Trump's immigration policies and many who don't, and this article does not. The information is helpful, but the bias within the article may tweak things so that the reader comes out with a shifted viewpoint.

The piece of misinformation that I found in this article is the claim that Trump made stating that "the mayor is happy." This claim is most likely not true because the mayor is a Democrat and will disagree with Trump's attempt at sending the National Guard to his city.

The piece of misinformation that I found in this article is the claim that Trump made stating that "the mayor is happy." This claim is most likely not true because the mayor is a Democrat and will disagree with Trump's attempt at sending the National Guard to his city.

This article talks about Trump's claims that it is the left that caused the killing of Charlie Kirk. Though NPR is not directly supporting this claim, it is important to note that the killer has not been caught, and motives are still unknown. Therefore, Trump is spreading misinformation by claiming that the left was being the assassination.

AP is doing the fact-checking for me, but I find it concerning that with the uptick of political violence in this country, people are spreading misinformation about it. With political violence, credible information is key to maintaining a sense of "security" and accuracy for constituents and politicians. The spreading of this false narrative is fueling the fire that is keeping political violence as volatile as it is right now by undermining the reality of what is happening. It confuses audiences from knowing what is correct and what is not.

I found this news troubling because the author suggests that physical conflict may be the only solution to political dispute. As the author puts it: "Sometimes solving problems requires the men running the country to put their money and meat hooks where their mouths are." There is no chance of constructive political discussion anymore; it's best for all of us to fight it out, according to the author.