Previous Troubling Reports

The article exhibits a clear right-leaning bias through its framing and language. It emphasizes Republican criticism of the Michigan Democrats' proposed bill, using emotionally charged terms like “attack on law enforcement” and quoting officials who accuse Democrats of caring more about criminals than victims. Democratic perspectives are underrepresented and given less space, while rebuttals from ICE and DHS are detailed and framed as authoritative. The article also draws a contrast between the current proposal and past COVID-era mask mandates to imply hypocrisy, without fully exploring the differing legal contexts. For context, fines during COVID were implemented in a public-health push. At the same time, these proposals to remove masking can either be viewed as endangering and doxxing law enforcement, or holding immigration enforcement accountable for potentially illegal or questionable actions.

This article is problematic on some levels. It does not provide equal representation on the topic. Sure, it gives Crockett's words in detail, but also provides quotes from two Republicans. This unequal representation makes it seem like Representative Crockett is a symbol of ideology in the Democratic Party. It also uses, while accurate, biased language when describing Crockett's words. Her words are described as "obscene" and her insults as "slams". Comparatively, Trump's response to Crockett had no descriptors. The article allows misinformation to spread. The article quotes White House spokeswoman Abigail Jackson, who claims that Crockett is "the Democrat[ic] Party's chief spokeswoman." Crockett holds no such position, and was not the only person at the event. (As a side note, the proper term is "Democratic Party," while "Democrat" is a slang term for a member of the party. "Democrat Party" is not a grammatically correct way of referring to the Democratic Party.)

A National Guard pilot was wrongly accused of being responsible for the black hawk helicopter crash that killed 67 people. Although she was never present at the tragedy, it is assumed that because she is transgender, she was held responsible by certain media outlets as a scapegoat for the crash. Most significantly, when X chatbot Grok was asked who was responsible, the algorithm pinned her as the pilot; however, she was not even on board the aircraft.

The article fails to correlate any clear policies to the Cincinnati attack directly. It only broadly stated that defunding the police and the mayor were responsible, calling for his resignation. It seems to be a mostly defamatory article that uses a tragedy for political means.

The title of this article is exaggerated and can be misleading since the contents mainly talk about a drill for a possible future pandemic.

The title of this article is exaggerated and can be misleading since the contents mainly talk about a drill for a possible future pandemic.

This article is troubling because it describes the recent actions of this administration as "Orwellian," or dystopian. This action refers to Trump's executive order to remove certain information from the Smithsonian Institution. This now-removed information does detail Trump's record of impeachments, so it does benefit him. However, it seems far-reaching to describe this as Orwellian since the Smithsonian is not the only place to have this information on his impeachment. Plus, the Smithsonian has mentioned that there will still be an exhibit describing the President's impeachments. Furthermore, the article seems incredibly biased when saying that, "Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people." Overall, the language used in the article does not intend to inform the public neutrally but instead intends to bash President Trump.

Immediately, the title indicates some expediency bias. The patronizing question and instant connection established between Trump and Epstein almost certainly serves as clickbait. The rest of the article is not much better. The author writes that "Donald Trump is abusing [Giuffre’s] memory,” and that she is “hoping this "sick episode will cause even more pain for Trump, and sometime soon.” While this article contains numerous direct quotes and some facts have been corroborated, the framing of the Epstein files controversy reveals the journalist’s personal, highly negative view of Trump. This article is an excellent example of a brazenly biased news article. The problem with that is this: it’s not really a “news article.” In reality, it functions more like an opinion piece. But, it is not labelled as an opinion piece. It’s in The Nation’s ‘Politics’ section, like any other political article. Disguising a targeted attack of Trump and his connection to a sex-trafficker (how well-founded these claims are, we have yet to see) as regular news is highly misleading.

Although the sources and information linked in this article may not necessarily be misinformation, the title of the article still comes off as click-bait.

Although the sources and information linked in this article may not necessarily be misinformation, the title of the article still comes off as click-bait.

This write-up of a Hill interview with Peter Navarro centers only on his view, as he goes on to bash the recent job statistics in support of President Trump. The article does not do independent fact-checking against Navarro's statements or provide opinions from the other side of the aisle.

This article heavily focuses on how the Democrats have had to retreat and emphasizes their failures, while presenting Republican criticism as legitimate and effective without examining counterarguments. Opposing viewpoints are minimally represented except for critical quotes about their failures, while Republican viewpoints attacking the Green New deal are presented without challenge or context.