Previous Troubling Reports

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

Overall, this article is completely factual and has many sources cited, but there is some biases within the article. This article seems to report on the event factually, but there is some context and direct quotes and opinions from critics that give off a bias. For example, the uses of the phrase "reviving a more powerful name" could be seen as biased toward the change, while focusing on the "cost" or "distraction" of the change would indicate a more critical viewpoint.

This article's title is misleading because nowhere in the article does a lawyer talk about how Trump tariffs are illegal or legal. The article is about the position that court justices have taken regarding the legality of Trump tarrifs. None of which has said it's illegal.

In the current debate over what information should be used in college admissions processes, Trump and his administration have targeted several high-ranking and ivy league institutions. The article states that, "The president denounced such requirements as 'unlawfully discriminatory practices' that elevate ideology over merit." Trump is referring to the SCOTUS decision to get rid of Affirmative Action at the collegiate admissions level. These admissions processes are, according to his administration, promoting left-wing ideology and political correctness over merit and academic achievement. This is false, as admissions processes that look at the entire individual applicant and factors such as place of residence, lived experience, gender/sex, and socioeconomic status help to close the systemic gap that historically marginalized people face in the admissions process. By just going off of merit-based processes, this systemically lowers the chances of already-marginalized applicants from succeeding, as merit-based opportunities, higher school funding, and resources usually do not exist in areas that are mostly occupied by marginalized people. The process is not about a "woke," left-wing ideology, it is about closing the gap for all people to have the opportunity of college and higher education.

This article uses phrases like “pushing back on President Donald Trump’s move,” which frames economists as opposing him for political beliefs, rather than actually opposing the substance of his propositions. The article also gives minimal coverage to the economists’ arguments. Phrases like “acted within his lawful authority” are used to describe Trump’s administration, while the economists' views are not represented in the same manner.

I found this article to be concerning because it extrapolates hate rhetoric from a small number of Reddit accounts and states that this is representative of underlying hatred that all leftists hold. Furthermore, the article solely blames Satan for a school shooting, which I believe not only to be insensitive, but extremely reductive and unconstructive in terms of figuring out how to solve the issue of school shootings generally.

While the article goes on to explain that the drugs "were made available under Emergency Use Authorization (EUA) and the Public Readiness and Emergency Preparedness (PREP) Act," and goes into detail about exactly what restrictions were lifted and how that could be concerning, the title is misleading by using inflammatory phrases like "Human Medical Experiment" and" mRNA jabs" while calling the vaccines the 'most dangerous' without supporting that claim. It then ends the headline by saying that the vaccines are being used to 'sicken and murder Americans,' also without support. The lack of support for the headline within the article makes this concerning news and misinformation.