Previous Troubling Reports

First, the title is unspecific about who "all" is referring to. If "all" is implied to be all Americans, this broad of a statement cannot be true. The article claims Trump was "bleeding from the head," but he was actually bleeding from the ear. The author states that "there is only one appropriate response" to the Trump assassination attempt, which is a biased opinion. She also describes those who do not share this opinion as people living in a "cesspit," which is extremely harsh and crude language.

First, the title is unspecific about who "all" is referring to. If "all" is implied to be all Americans, this broad of a statement cannot be true. The article claims Trump was "bleeding from the head," but he was actually bleeding from the ear. The author states that "there is only one appropriate response" to the Trump assassination attempt, which is a biased opinion. She also describes those who do not share this opinion as people living in a "cesspit," which is extremely harsh and crude language.

First, the title is unspecific about who "all" is referring to. If "all" is implied to be all Americans, this broad of a statement cannot be true. The article claims Trump was "bleeding from the head," but he was actually bleeding from the ear. The author states that "there is only one appropriate response" to the Trump assassination attempt, which is a biased opinion. She also describes those who do not share this opinion as people living in a "cesspit," which is extremely harsh and crude language.

First, the title is unspecific about who "all" is referring to. If "all" is implied to be all Americans, this broad of a statement cannot be true. The article claims Trump was "bleeding from the head," but he was actually bleeding from the ear. The author states that "there is only one appropriate response" to the Trump assassination attempt, which is a biased opinion. She also describes those who do not share this opinion as people living in a "cesspit," which is extremely harsh and crude language.

There is a clear bias just based on the title of being against vaccines. Throughout the article, Carlson sites different studies but provides none of the actual studies and doesn't provide any evidence in support of vaccines

There is a clear bias just based on the title of being against vaccines. Throughout the article, Carlson sites different studies but provides none of the actual studies and doesn't provide any evidence in support of vaccines

These claims have been refuted and proven false. They also provide no evidence in support of the claims.

These are false claims and there is no real evidence to back these up and suppor them.

This is just not true and there is no evidence to support that these medical schools teach these "woke ideologies" over medicine.

This is just not true and there is no evidence to support that these medical schools teach these "woke ideologies" over medicine.

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.