Previous Troubling Reports

This way that this headline (and the whole article, really) is set up is designed to prod readers into believing that Mamdani’s father was misappropriating taxpayer dollars. This is not indicative of the truth. If you can read past the shameless editorializing, you’ll see that Mamdani applied for a special grant with the DOE… and got it. You don’t have to like that the DOE granted the request, or think that Mamdani’s reasoning for why he should qualify is sound. In that case, take it up with the DOE. This does not have anything to do with abuse or fraud, like the tone insinuates. Additionally, this entire article is clearly trying to set Zohran Mamdani up as some kind of co-conspirator or inheritor of treasonous tendencies. Which is also very weird.

The title of this article claims that Obama knew Russiagate intelligence was manufactured, and it says it as a fact. However, they do not have any proof about this, and they admit that they can not prove it as there is no document showing this. This is misinformation because they are making claims that they cannot support.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

This article frames the California government as being responsible for aid money that went to several organizations, even though the article admits that Fireaid has no connection to the California government, meaning this article is blaming the California government over the actions of a private organization.

The article omits certain important details, intended to suggest that Democrats are calling for a vote on the release of the Epstein files alone. It is important to note that many of these votes are amendments to other bills that are generally unrelated. Therefore, requiring representatives to vote in favor of the bill for the files to be released. This is a relatively common tactic for both parties, in which they can say that one party refuses to do something generally viewed as good, and outright ignore the rest of the bill.

This article spreads a lot of misinformation and extreme bias disguised as news. It falsely claims the Democratic Party is collapsing and accuses leaders like President Biden and Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani of either hiding major scandals or supporting terrorism, without providing any real evidence. It paints cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles as completely destroyed, which is a huge exaggeration that ignores complex issues like housing and inequality. The article also wrongly labels progressive politicians as communists and accuses the Democratic Party of hating Jewish people and America itself, an incredibly dangerous and unfounded claim.

This article describes the recent debate in a Committee on House Administration hearing. The issue at stake was whether or not we should strengthen the rules for voter list maintenance (“cleaning voter lists”). Republicans felt like this was necessary to prevent voter fraud, such as one person voting in multiple places or ballots being cast in the name of a deceased person. On the other hand, Democrats felt like this push for list maintenance had an ulterior motive to make sure that elections favor one party. This article is very one-sided and presents the information in a biased/skewed way. The author strongly criticizes the argument held by Democrats and brings up the possibility that “Democrats are exploiting weaknesses caused by inaccurate voter rolls to cheat.” The author also provided many quotes from Republican members of the committee supporting their argument, but did not provide the same amount of information from Democrat members. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

The article is extremely biased and riddled with factual misinformation. Bolsonaro was indicted for attempting a violent coup of the government which included plans to poison the president and vice president. The evidence of this is publicly available and certainly appears overwhelming. Saying that an ex-president being indicted is "dangerous radical left lawfare" when he was indicted for trying to coup the government is heavily biased framing. Regardless of what you think of Trump's foreign policy moves, unless the charges were made up entirely, which they certainly don't appear to be, indicting him was not "radical left lawfare" but absolutely necessary and justified.

This article uses very biased language to describe clashes between immigration enforcement officers and counter-protestors that have been prevalent over the past month in Portland, OR. The opening describes the council as “progressive‑leaning” and the protesters as “radical agitators,” which immediately positions one side as ideologically driven and the other as violent without nuance.

This article describes the recent comments made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on a Fox News interview. Gabbard accused Barack Obama and his administration of launching a coup against Donald Trump in regards to election fraud and Russian interference in the 2016 election. Some Republicans have viewed this as breaking news, while some Democrats aren’t taking the claims too seriously and believe it to be a distraction. Although there seems to be mixed reactions on Gabbard’s statement, the media should be objective and impartial when reporting on news like this. This article strongly asserts that Tulsi Gabbard is fabricating the scandal to cover up the fact that Donald Trump actually received help from Russia during the 2016 election. The author also calls Tulsi Gabbard the “Russian-sympathetic” and “Putin-friendly” Director of National Intelligence. I feel like this reads as a strong opinion piece, but it is categorized as the latest news. This is why I think this article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.