Previous Troubling Reports

The headline is misleading, because it's implying that the economy is already improving because of Trump, despite not yet being President. Really, the article talks about consumer sentiments and optimism most prominently, while also writing about how Trump's proposed policies would benefit the economy. The economy has yet to actually improve in reality on the ground, and it is premature to declare that such is happening. It's simply too early. Also, the article fails to provide opposing viewpoints, such as from an economist who might be more critical of Trump's economic policies to contrast one that is supportive of them.

This article immediately used very speculative and far-reaching language to generalise an issue that is only fractionally or partially true. For example, "Children should be able to learn without worrying about whether they will be denied access to the restroom, the locker room, or school sports," he said, which, translated into regular English, means "Boys, including 18-year-old seniors, must access girls’ locker rooms and sports, if it agrees with their internal sense of self." This quote, rephrased by Fox News, demonstrates the use of straw manning an original quote and oversimplifying it into more nuanced and also more vague terms to be more eye-catching.

The article is very much against Matt Gaetz and his possibility as US Attorney General (at the time of the article he had not withdrawn his name from the nomination). The article makes it obvious with its comments on Gaetz like “That’s your next attorney general, America. Nicely done.” While what Matt Gaetz has been alleged to do is terrible and the Venmo payments do not help, the article is not displaying the information in an unbiased way. Presenting this information in an unbiased way would have let people come to their own conclusions, but the author is letting their distaste for Gaetz seep through.

I found this article troubling, given its use of alarmist language, which can incite fear and panic among readers. By suggesting that the authorization of long-range missiles could lead to World War III, the article may exaggerate the situation and contribute to heightened tensions. Such rhetoric can undermine diplomatic efforts and rational discourse on international relations. Rep. Thomas Massie calls Biden's authorization an "impeachable offense, " stating that he is an emasculated puppet of a deep state. Massie's statement implies a deep distrust in governmental institutions and suggests that Biden is not acting independently, which could further polarize political discourse. By labeling the authorization as an "impeachable offense," Massie escalates the political stakes and potentially undermines confidence in the administration's foreign policy decisions. Such rhetoric may deepen divisions within Congress and among the public, making collaborative efforts on international issues more challenging.

This article risks spreading misinformation through selective framing and speculative language. By presenting unverified claims—such as Musk’s supposed demand for unpaid labor and his exaggerated ties to President-elect Trump—it fosters a narrative without substantiating all aspects. The sarcastic tone and lack of balance in presenting potential benefits or alternative perspectives skew the discussion, misleading readers about the purpose and intent of Musk’s "DOGE" initiative. The title itself is inherently false, but if one were to just read the title by itself without reading the actual article, it is incredibly misleading. By emphasizing controversies and omitting neutral context, the piece appears designed to evoke skepticism rather than encourage informed evaluation of the proposal.

This article is very biased, and goes into the realm of near-baseless speculation and almost conspiratorial thinking. First off, the author calls all mainstream media liberally biased without acknowledging any exceptions or nuance, and scoffs at any articles claiming otherwise, and the reasons they might. It then moves to question the authenticity of the final poll released by Selzer, a non-partisan poll. In the polling industry, outliers and big misses from reputable pollsters happen -- for example, the WaPo poll which is considered good, released a lopsided Biden+17 Wisconsin poll, an outlier that did not occur. This is what happened to Selzer, she ended up with an outlier. The speculative accusation that she somehow rigged the poll is misinformation, as there is no evidence to base it out of. This article is also blatant misinformation for calling Selzer a Democratic Pollster, when she is a non-partisan one. Democratic pollsters are those commissioned by the Democratic party or Democratic Campaigns. Selzer is commissioned by the Des-Moines Register.

This article's headline draws a metaphor between tech billionaire Elon musk, and a 16th century English figure executed for treason at the hand of the king, his superior. The metaphor can very easily be extended to assume that Trump is the King in this metaphor as he is now Musk's superior. The article employs the use of language which contributes to and exaggerates this narrative, "He has flown straight from Texas in his Gulfstream to bask in the adulation of his new lord and master" (Donald Trump as his master). This is an overt use of straw manning an argument but in a news source article.

This article frames the PA Senate election as already decided in favor of Republican candidate Dave McCormick, despite how close the race is and outstanding ballots that must still be counted. While it is likely that McCormick will win, it is still possible that Casey wins by a slim margin once every single vote is counted. This article presents a McCormick win as certain, when it is not. That's misinformation, because it does not acknowledge the reality that the race is still in flux, and that there is not yet a definitive winner.

Once again an example of misinformation being rapidly spread over social media just because one person started it and everyone believed it. I suppose the purpose of this one was to intentionally plant more doubt and distrust in things we're so familiar with, in this case, stores like Sephora and Home Depot and Kohl's. And despite the fact that there is law prohibiting corporations from using general funds to make direct contributions to candidates in federal elections, a lot of people believed this rumor anyway. It's just crazy how fast this stuff can spread despite it being completely untrue.

The article does not really give any reasons as to why people are upset over the possibility of Matt Gaetz being the Attorney General of the United States. Matt Gaetz has a list of controversies that would make most people upset that he would be leading the DOJ. The controversies include rape and child sex trafficking with a House Ethics Committee investigation, but the article does not mention it. This is why Democrats and Republicans are upset as this does not seem like a person that should lead the DOJ but the writer makes it seem like a case of “owning the libs.” Also, that there should be no reason for people to be concerned or “triggered” as said in the title of Gaetz as a cabinet pick. The article is biased against “anti-Trump Republicans” and Democracts all in favor of supproting Trump and his picks for his cabinet good or bad. Even though people on both sides of the political spectrum are concerned over this pick.

This article presents a critical and somewhat humorous perspective on Elon Musk's involvement with the "Doge" meme and Dogecoin, especially in the context of his influence in the political sphere and the hypothetical establishment of the "Department of Government Efficiency." Its tone leans toward skepticism, with frequent references to Musk’s past controversial actions, such as his role in Dogecoin’s price fluctuations and legal challenges. It frames Musk's connection to Dogecoin and his support for Trump as potentially self-serving, suggesting that his influence might undermine regulatory standards and harm governmental functions. The article’s language — like "dumb history," "meme stock craze," and "assault on government institutions" — reveals a negative stance toward both Musk's ventures in government and his crypto-influence. Although it offers factual details, the language and emphasis on Musk's controversies indicate a critical, possibly biased tone rather than a neutral one.

This is a ridiculously biased and poorly reported article that suggests that in the wake of Trump's election, women will lose their rights and safety. The article does feature concerning quotes and takes from far-right men, but the premise of the issue is all wrong. The author claimed "Trump ran a campaign that included denying women their free will," which is a completely unsubstantiated claim. In regard to abortion, the reality is that the president of the US does not have any say or power in the issue, as SCOTUS relegated the issue to the individual states. Donald Trump does NOT want to take away women's rights or jeopardize their safety, and the implication that this is the case is concerning as it tries to spark division and fear among US citizens. The article should have focused on the issue of these individuals spreading misogyny and violence.