Previous Troubling Reports

Two things are going on here. One super nitpicky thing, but *technically* their recommendation wasn’t for NO prison time— they recommended a one-day sentence. I know, I know, basically nothing, but still not totally the truth. Secondly, there’s definitely something incendiary about characterizing the DOJ’s legal recommendation as “wanting” the officer to get no prison time. This is a tactic I see a lot, and it’s always coupled with an oversimplification of the situation. The DOJ is not technically supposed to “want” anything, as in try to enact their political will. They’re making legal recommendations based on arguments, evidence, and standards. Or, at least they are supposed to! The journalist provided no evidence to the contrary, so I just have to assume that this was ill-intentioned framing.

This article describes the reintroduction of the Bipartisan Dignity Act, a new and improved immigration reform bill. This piece of legislation would secure the border while allowing certain long-term undocumented immigrants to earn legal status without amnesty or a path to citizenship. Some Republicans have joined Democrats in this effort, including Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican U.S. representative. This article is extremely one-sided in its reporting and interpretation of the bill. It strongly criticizes Salazar, referring to her as a “so-called Republican” with an “un-American proposal.” The author also heavily criticizes the entire essence of the bill, claiming that mass immigration (whether legal or illegal) “treats America merely as a global economic opportunity zone for anyone who wants to cash in.” In addition, the author writes that this bill would provide mass amnesty, however Salazar herself has stated that this legislation doesn't include amnesty. Instead of giving an impartial/neutral perspective on this new version of the Dignity Act, the author has let their own biases bleed into their writing. This ultimately influences the reader's opinion on the matter. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

The title is incredibly misleading, as it seems to suggest Trump has had an increase in overall approval since the Epstein incident, however this only applies to a poll that showed Trump's approval go up by two points with just Republican voters. This article also disregards numerous other sources that show a decline in approval due to this issue, even amongst Republicans.

The title is incredibly misleading, as it seems to suggest Trump has had an increase in overall approval since the Epstein incident, however this only applies to a poll that showed Trump's approval go up by two points with just Republican voters. This article also disregards numerous other sources that show a decline in approval due to this issue, even amongst Republicans.

This article relies on biased language and unfounded claims, misrepresenting NPR and PBS as far-left propaganda while ignoring their essential role in rural areas with limited access to news and emergency alerts. It uses straw man arguments to paint Democrats as condescending toward rural voters and dismisses real issues like the digital divide. Instead of offering a fact-based critique of public media funding, it leans on emotional, partisan rhetoric that shuts down meaningful discussion.

Politico is a liberal leaning news platform. You can see this in the language used such as "president venting grievances" and "Trump is persuadable." It brings author opinion in to it when the author wrote about this being a theme that she has heard on capital hill. Brining up theories and rumors into professional writing is very difficult, as it helps creates the wrong narrative and can over-exaggerate the story.

The article takes a very clear bias towards the statements of Israel while ignoring context. It blames the U.N for wanting more aid sent in, when Netanyahu blocked all aid for months, and is indicted by the ICC for war criems precisely to do with illegal blockades of food. He assured his cabinet that he had to let in a minimal amount of aid to prevent the world from turning on Israel. Israel's current aid system with the U.S is condemned as inhumane by nearly every single major food or aid group globally. Pretending that the U.N is unreasonable for wanting more aid to Gaza and ignoring how Israel and the U.S are supposed to be responsible for making sure said "undistributed" pallets get distributed, it presents a very one sided, slanted article.

This article describes the backlash that occurred after the Justice Department and attorney general Pam Bondi explained that there was no client list in terms of the Jeffrey Epstein case. Many people are upset with the Trump administration and the overall handling of the Epstein case, even Republicans. Some individuals have even expressed conspiracy theories about why the files are not being published and Donald Trump’s possible connection to a client list. While this backlash is definitely erupting from both sides of the political spectrum, the authors in this article seem to be feeding into the conspiracies instead of impartially reporting on them. For example, the authors state, “President Donald Trump’s strategy has been to downplay the issue.” They also write, “His [Trump’s] problem? That nothing-to-see-here approach doesn’t work for those who’ve learned from him they must not give up until the government’s deepest, darkest secrets are exposed.” The writing in this article gives off the impression that Trump has something to hide and isn’t willing to give up the information. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article breaks down a post of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and a minor; however, there is clear evidence that AI generated the photo. This includes a deformity on the girl's left hand, deformities in the facial features of those in the background, and Trump appears only to have one leg. Despite these indications of AI generation, the photo has been widely circulating over social media and Chinese websites.

The article implies that the president is part of a larger Epstein conspiracy and is struggling to address the conflict; however, it does not include any quotes from the president, nor does it include any clear evidence that he was a part of a larger conspiracy. It seems to be mostly speculative and a defamation article

There are numerous problematic parts of this article. The majority of the issues in this article stem from a singular source from the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning organization. Firstly, the source states that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is involved in illegal operations surrounding the Southern Border. However, they do not provide any evidence to support this theory, and even spread unsubstantiated claims that the CCP was actively involved in spreading COVID-19 as a form of bioweapon. Secondly, the source states that there have been "hundreds of thousands" of deaths from fentanyl. This is misleading. While technically correct, a study by Preeti Vankar noted that around 218k people died from fentanyl overdoses between 2021 - 2023. "Hundreds of Thousands" implies far more than 200k, despite being a technically accurate description. There is also no known evidence to suggest that a significant portion of these deaths can be attributed to Chinese nationals. Further, the article argues that Biden's policies directly caused this inflow of fentanyl and Chinese nationals. However, the number of Chinese nationals encountered by border patrol during Biden's administration rose relatively compared to Trump's first administration. While this could mean that more Chinese nationals are illegally crossing the southern border, it could equally mean that the Biden administration has been more successfully cracking down on these crossings. The article makes the unfair assumption that the prior is true.

This article from Breitbart is misleading. The claims the article makes are that Democratic Candidate for New York City Mayor, Assemblyman Zorhan Mamdani, personally benefited from funding towards progressive-leaning groups, paid for by American investor George Soros. While public records indicate that Soros' Open Society Foundations has backed progressive organizations such as the Working Families Party (~$23.7M) and other progressive groups (~$14M), which then later supported and endorsed Mamdani, there is no evidence that Mamdani personally was enriched, nor benefitted from this funding. Breitbart does not include any of Mamdani's campaign disclosures or statements that could validate its claims. The piece accuses Mamdani of guilt by association without linking direct evidence to support its claim of hypocrisy due to the discrepancies between Mamdani's economic campaign message and the funding he has allegedly received. The piece also uses phrases like "far-left kingmaker" and "comic-book villain" to describe Soros, and has the source has regularly used phrases like "radical" and "commie" to describe Mr. Mamdani.