Previous Troubling Reports

This article clearly stirs up racial division. What does "taxing whites" even mean? Are all white Americans Scotch-Irish? Romanian? Do they even have data on all these ethnicities? Isn’t it more accurate to say that liberal Democrats aim to tax the extremely wealthy and redistribute resources back into society? The article seems to ignore the fact that wealthy individuals exist across many racial groups in New York—are we pretending successful Asians or Nigerians aren’t making millions too?

This article claims that Mamdani's tax plan will specifically target white residents and neighborhoods without citing specific sources where this claim can be confirmed. Mamdani's own campaign website also makes no mention of such plans, although tax increases for corporations are mentioned. This misinformation slanders the mayoral candidate and encourages racial division.

This article claims that Mamdani's tax plan will specifically target white residents and neighborhoods without citing specific sources where this claim can be confirmed. Mamdani's own campaign website also makes no mention of such plans, although tax increases for corporations are mentioned. This misinformation slanders the mayoral candidate and encourages racial division.

This article is certainly troubling news. It uses very dramatic and emotive language to describe the current situation in the Middle East. Most of its evidence and claims are also highly speculative, relying on shaky analysis of tweets and other unreliable sources. For example, the article speculates that Trump's use of the word "we" (in a tweet) implied the following: "By using 'we', Trump made it sound like he has already decided that the U.S. will soon be participating in offensive operations against Iran." These assertions were not corroborated by official government sources. The article also implies that escalation and a global crisis are inevitable. For instance, one quote in the article states that "The last time an opponent refused a demand from the United States to unconditionally surrender, two really big bombs got dropped." The article does not address the ongoing ceasefire efforts of international actors, instead presenting events as a binary showdown. As such, the article risks fueling unnecessary panic and misunderstanding, making it a source of troubling news and misinformation.

This article is meant to make Joe Biden and the "liberal media" Look bad. The author does this by making is opinion seem like fact.

This article is meant to make Joe Biden and the "liberal media" Look bad. The author does this by making is opinion seem like fact.

This article is meant to make Joe Biden and the "liberal media" Look bad. The author does this by making is opinion seem like fact.

While not downright misinformation, the partisan editorializing of the headline and much of the body of the article is concerning. The framing of Trump as being close to becoming a king is blatant fearmongering. This emotional appeal is continued throughout the article. Words like “petrifying,” “dubious,” “chaos,” and “discord” serve to stir up feelings of dread and worry. The article doesn’t provide a particularly clear or well-voiced argument for the comparison of Trump to a quasi-king. Instead, it mostly focuses on the decision the Supreme Court made about nationwide injunctions. This article would have been more accurate had it been framed as an opinion piece on the effects the ruling would have on executive authority and birthright citizenship. Instead, it is being used as a scare tactic through the medium of a half-baked pseudoargument. Additionally, though the article references many dissenting statements outside of the primary parties (SCOTUS and POTUS), there is little to no platforming of statements in agreement with the decision outside of the primary parties. Again, while not neatly fitting in the box of “untrue,” this article utilizes panic as its primary technique, rather than neutral, fair reporting that is well-thought-out. For this reason, this article is troubling to me.

This article uses pretty loaded language to make its point and comes off as biased in some parts. Right from the start, it describes Andrew Cuomo with harsh words like “grievance,” “paranoia,” and an “imperial sense of entitlement,” which makes it clear the author doesn’t just want to report the facts, but wants you to see Cuomo in a really negative way. It also calls second-generation politicians “nepo babies,” which is a pretty mocking term and shows a lack of neutrality. The writer praises newer politicians as having “vitality and vigor” while mocking Cuomo’s campaign as just a tired repeat. Even Ron DeSantis’s possible plan to support his wife as a political successor is called a “scheme,” which makes it sound shady without much explanation. Overall, the article clearly favors fresh, younger candidates and makes older, well-known politicians sound out of touch or selfish, which shows the author has a strong opinion rather than staying neutral.

This article uses pretty loaded language to make its point and comes off as biased in some parts. Right from the start, it describes Andrew Cuomo with harsh words like “grievance,” “paranoia,” and an “imperial sense of entitlement,” which makes it clear the author doesn’t just want to report the facts, but wants you to see Cuomo in a really negative way. It also calls second-generation politicians “nepo babies,” which is a pretty mocking term and shows a lack of neutrality. The writer praises newer politicians as having “vitality and vigor” while mocking Cuomo’s campaign as just a tired repeat. Even Ron DeSantis’s possible plan to support his wife as a political successor is called a “scheme,” which makes it sound shady without much explanation. Overall, the article clearly favors fresh, younger candidates and makes older, well-known politicians sound out of touch or selfish, which shows the author has a strong opinion rather than staying neutral.

The article “The Slow, Painful Death of the American Political Dynasty” uses pretty loaded language to make its point and comes off as biased in some parts. Right from the start, it describes Andrew Cuomo with harsh words like “grievance,” “paranoia,” and an “imperial sense of entitlement,” which makes it clear the author doesn’t just want to report the facts, but wants you to see Cuomo in a really negative way. It also calls second-generation politicians “nepo babies,” which is a pretty mocking term and shows a lack of neutrality. The writer praises newer politicians as having “vitality and vigor” while mocking Cuomo’s campaign as just a tired repeat. Even Ron DeSantis’s possible plan to support his wife as a political successor is called a “scheme,” which makes it sound shady without much explanation. Overall, the article clearly favors fresh, younger candidates and makes older, well-known politicians sound out of touch or selfish, which shows the author has a strong opinion rather than staying neutral.

Within this article the opening phrase by the author signifies a framing reinforcing a partisan narrative stating, "leaves no doubt that she stands with President Trump and the conservative supermajority". In addition, using words such as "dramatic win" stresses significance. Also most of the sources are political such as quotes from President Trump and conservative individuals meaning there is limited coverage of other sources. The article leans into portraying Barrett's actions as political not very judicial.