Previous Troubling Reports

This article uses pretty strong language that clearly shows a bias against the "Big Beautiful Bill, beginning with the article's title saying "egregious."" It calls the bill “radical” and focuses a lot on negative impacts like cutting health care and food assistance, while using emotional words like “slush fund” and “lawlessness” to describe parts of the bill and the Trump administration. The article also highlights mostly the downsides and doesn’t give much space to any potential benefits or arguments from supporters, which makes it feel one-sided. Overall, it leans heavily toward a critical viewpoint rather than offering a balanced look at the bill.

This article tends to paint Democratic NYC mayoral nominee Zohran Mamdani in a positive light, using biased language and tone. A direct quote states "But for the most part New Yorkers didn't fall for it. Mamdani is now the Democratic candidate after getting the most votes in the primary last week. He is one step closer to becoming mayor of the nation's largest city." This is in reference to a smear campaign that Mamdani alleged was being orchestrated against him by the media, and this statement seems to support Mamdani's claim, showing a left-leaning bias.

It's an article that says the covid vaccine is horrible, causes a bunch of deaths, that Fauci is a murderer who should be jailed forever, and numerous other falsehoods. This is a direct quote from the report. "RFK’s explosive interview, paired with Pfizer’s jaw-dropping decision to kick the can on its myocarditis study until 2030, represent a rallying cry for Americans to demand justice before these psychopaths wipe us all out." That shows clearly an incredible biased piece of journalism that has zero interest in factual reporting.

The reporter isn’t wrong about the sanctions lifted by the Trump administration. Mohammad al-Jasim (Abu Amsha) and Sayf Abu Bakr are among the warlords whose names were removed. What we must remember is that Syria’s new president was once considered a warlord and terrorist, known for shifting between militant groups. Now, he wears a suit and presents himself as a symbol of unity in Syria. I’m not sure how long this period of peace and rebuilding will last. But those we label as “freedom fighters” or “terrorists” are sometimes no different from troops we send overseas, who may also commit horrific acts of war. Trump is offering a chance to a nation devastated by violence and abuse. He could easily reimpose sanctions, which would cripple Syria and render all current progress meaningless. As for the two individuals named, the article does not present solid evidence or mention any trials proving they were directly responsible for kidnappings or rapes. While their units may have been involved in questionable actions, there is no confirmation that either of them personally committed these crimes.

The article assumes that the trump administration has slightly taken the two supposed warlords off the

This article describes the recent decision by the Senate to pass the spending and tax bill called “The Big Beautiful Bill." It explains the potential consequences of the bill in terms of Medicaid cuts, health coverage being taken away from immigrants, grocery prices going up, etc. While the article does a good job of explaining the process of the bill moving to the House and the severity of the decision, it does use plenty of loaded language against Donald Trump and Republicans. The author calls this bill “The Big Ugly Bill” as a jab against Trump/Republicans and the positive nickname they made for the legislation. She also claims that any Republicans in the House or Senate who vote yes have poor leadership. The author has definitely allowed her own opinions and bias to bleed into her writing. For example, she specifically calls on Republicans in the House to find the courage to vote no on the bill. When the author’s opinions are clearly laid out in this manner, it changes/influences the way the reader interprets the news. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

I think this article is misleading because it just says that the decrease in funds to Medicaid and other government services is going to make the rich richer. However, the article does nothing to explain how the GOP is going to funnel that money to the rich which makes their claim less valid.

The article claims buying drink-by-drink is causing bars to lose money in credit card fees, since the fee is a mere percentage of the bill, it doesn't actually cost the bars money unless the fee counts as a flat rate. They claim more money is spent on these fees since COVID-19, but fail to address the lockdown in which bars made no revenue and therefore had little to no credit card fees to pay. While not political, its concerning that they arent providing accurate/complete information on how the bars are losing money.

I find that this article lacks evidence of any individual Jewish student being directly harmed during the protests. It seems more concerned with the fact that some students were protesting in support of Palestinian citizens, not in support of Hamas. The publication itself leans conservative and frequently aligns with figures like Trump. It would be more informative if the article included data, such as the number of Jewish professors at Harvard, to provide a broader context. The university is not neglecting Jewish student safety, and students have the right to protest, just as citizens do in the streets. I feel the term anti-Semitism is being overused. Advocating for the rights of Palestinian citizens, such as access to life, education, and work, does not make someone anti-Jewish. It reflects opposition to the policies of the Israeli government. Remember, Israel is not a religious institution like the Vatican; it's a state, and criticism of its government should not be conflated with hatred toward the Jewish faith or people. Using anti-Semitism as a blanket label is dangerous, it risks silencing those who speak out against violence and injustice inflicted on innocent civilians.

This article is misleading in several ways. It tries to tie Zohran Mamdani’s political beliefs to his father’s academic work without offering any real evidence that he shares or is influenced by those views. It paints Mahmood Mamdani’s scholarship as “radical,” misrepresenting complex ideas about postcolonialism and historical injustices, and even suggests he defends terrorism without actually quoting or linking to anything specific. The piece also leans heavily on guilt by association rather than focusing on Zohran’s own record or platform. It brings up his background and land ownership in Uganda as if they’re scandalous, but offers no proof of wrongdoing, just speculation.

While not necessarily misinformation, the headline and contents of this article can be misleading as it uses more subjective language and uses more biased language to describe the politicians involved.

While not necessarily misinformation, the headline and contents of this article can be misleading as it uses more subjective language and uses more biased language to describe the politicians involved.