Previous Troubling Reports

The misinformation in this article comes from Trump's claim that the Democratic lawmakers are traitors just because they are encouraging the military to refuse orders from Trump that are illegal.

This article examines growing presure on Republican lawmakers as ACA premium millions subsides approach expiration, potentially triggering sharp increases in health insurance costs for millions of Americans. It outlines how the looming deadline has created political uergency, with Democrats signaling oppenness to extending subsides while Republicans struggle to present a cohensive alternative health-care strategy. The report frames the situation as a policy gap that is becoming more acute as insurers being setting next year's rates. However, the piece characterizes Republican efforts as fragmented and slow-moving, emphasizing that internal disagreements and the absence of a unified plan have left the party vulnerable to criticism. While the article does include comments from several Republican lawmakers, their statements are generally brief and defensive,contrasted with more detailed warnings from policy analysts and Democratic officials about consequences of inacation. This narrative choice creats an asymmetry in how each side's positions are represneted. Overall, this article adopt a tone that is factual but subly critical, suggesting that Republican hesitation could contribute to significant disruptions in the health insurance marketplace. The framing, word choice , and limited exploration of pro-Republic policy arguments produce a liberal leaning, althogh the journalist who wrote it trid to make it moderate. Despit referencing mutiple sources, the emphasis consistently falls on risks and potential negative outcomes associated with Republican policy delays, shaping reader expections about necessity of prompt legislative action.

This article has a clear liberal bias from MSNBC. While it does highlight the fact that President Trump and NYC Mayor-elect Mamdani had more to agree on than anticipated, it is highly critical of Trump's words regarding the Mayor-elect during his campaign period. Additionally, it links to a tweet from Senator Rick Scott calling Mamdani a communist about to be schooled by Trump. It continually portrays the President and Republican Senator in a negative light while highlighting the positives of Mamdani's campaign with no mention of the names Mamdani had for Trump during the campaign.

the article has a particular framing that depends on how you read it with its tone and sources.

The report is based on facts, but it is framed in a way that people could take it as misleading. It states "charm offensive" which can suggest Mamdani deliberately tried to win over Trump. It also states New Yorkers are "cautiously optimistic".

This article is troubling because it makes tense foreign relations claims without any real or credible evidence to support them, and without mention of any evidence that disputes them. This is standard selection and omission bias from this news source, which I had admittedly never read before this article. The article claims with utmost certainty that the current Prince of Saudi Arabia ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a reporter, without any citations for this claim. Upon further research, the only source claiming that is the CIA, a source that has been proven to be manipulative and, in many instances, has placed the organization's interests above the lives of U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, and journalistic truth. Without lingering too long on this topic, I would recommend researching the CIA's foreign involvement in the heroin trade, starting with the Vietnam War but continuing during the Afghanistan War, as well. Also relevant to this source's CIA citation would be the back-channel CIA black funded operations conducted on U.S. soil during the 60's, like CHAOS, MKULTRA or COINTELPRO, conducted by U.S. intelligence on American citizens. Additionally, this article uses a myriad of emotive language to express the author's overwhelming discontent with Trump's foreign policy and presidency as a whole. Some of these words and phrases include: moral repugnancy, blankness, appalling, contemptible, and disrespect, nearly all aimed at Trump or the Saudi Prince. My writing here is in no way trying to deny or downplay the horrific execution of a Washington reporter, but to blame someone for a crime of this nature requires diverse and reliable source evidence. The article clearly depends on the audience not conducting its own research and takes every opportunity to attack Trump and blame him, by association, for the Khashoggi murder.

I will preface this by saying that I did not realize it actually said "Opinion" until I clicked on the article itself. However, it was placed on the front page of MS's website under the section "Must Reads", and there it did not advertise itself as an opinion article. I think that can already be misleading, as the audience may not realize that the article is intended to be an opinion one, and will take everything as fact. The article itself, while it is clearly an opinion article, sometimes goes too far with its descriptions and explanations of the situation at hand. While the comment the President made is abhorrent, the article begins to detail how this is only a "part" of the downfall of our democracy. These are hypothetical scenarios that should not be treated in the same way as a fully factual article is, as none of these situations have actually happened. The article ends with the quote "“Quiet, piggy” is just the latest terrible example. And if we stay quiet, the one thing we know is it won’t be the last", which leaves the audience with a sense of alarm. This is persuasive writing and done on purpose by the author to be seen as such, which could veer into misinformant territory.

The CNN article examines President Trump's accusation that several Democratic lawmakers committed "sedition"by releasing a video urging military personnel not to follow "unlawful orders." CNN emphasizes that the lawmakers repeatedly referred only to illegal commands, citing UCMJ rules requiring troops to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. the piece argues that Trump's interprertation-that Democrats told troops to defy lawful orders- is factually incorrect and misrepresent the content of the video. The article relies heavily on past controversies involving Trump to justify Demoncrats concern about illegal orders. However, many of examples CNN cites-such as targeted strikes, National Guard developments, or foreign-policy decisions-occurred within existing legal debate rather than clear violations. By presenting these actions as near-certain evidence of illegality, CNN's framing downplays the legal justifications that existed at the time, exaggerates the implication that President Trump routinely seeks unlawful actions, and reinforces a narrative the supports one political perspective over a more balance legal interpretaition. While the article offers useful legal context about unlawful orders under UCMJ, it clearly blends factual information with interpretive framing. Its selection of historical examples, emphasis on President Trump' s most extreme rhetoric, and minimal exploration of political motives behind the Democrats' video contribute to a non-neutral narrative structure. The article remains informative but ultimately reflects CNN's editorial leanings , presenting one side as legally grounded and the other as reckless, despite the existence of legitimate legal debate surrounding several of the claims.

The CNN article examines President Trump's accusation that several Democratic lawmakers committed "sedition"by releasing a video urging military personnel not to follow "unlawful orders." CNN emphasizes that the lawmakers repeatedly referred only to illegal commands, citing UCMJ rules requiring troops to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. the piece argues that Trump's interprertation-that Democrats told troops to defy lawful orders- is factually incorrect and misrepresent the content of the video. The article relies heavily on past controversies involving Trump to justify Demoncrats concern about illegal orders. However, many of examples CNN cites-such as targeted strikes, National Guard developments, or foreign-policy decisions-occurred within existing legal debate rather than clear violations. By presenting these actions as near-certain evidence of illegality, CNN's framing downplays the legal justifications that existed at the time, exaggerates the implication that President Trump routinely seeks unlawful actions, and reinforces a narrative the supports one political perspective over a more balance legal interpretaition. While the article offers useful legal context about unlawful orders under UCMJ, it clearly blends factual information with interpretive framing. Its selection of historical examples, emphasis on President Trump' s most extreme rhetoric, and minimal exploration of political motives behind the Democrats' video contribute to a non-neutral narrative structure. The article remains informative but ultimately reflects CNN's editorial leanings , presenting one side as legally grounded and the other as reckless, despite the existence of legitimate legal debate surrounding several of the claims.

Trump did an interview with Laura Ingraham from Fox News in which he explained that there are not enough talented people in the United States to fill certain jobs, and therefore supports continuing the H-1B visa program alongside his new immigration policies. While I do personally disagree with the president's comment, I find this article is troubling news because it appears to sensationalize both the statement by President Trump and the context of the interview. The article uses emotionally charged phrases such as "boasting about America’s AI prowess", "MAGA blasted the interview", and "the president’s waffling nationalism and his apparent doubt in American excellence". This type of language is very charged and makes the coverage of this interview feel less objective and more opinion-driven, which may influence readers' perceptions rather than encouraging them to form their own conclusions.

Overall, this article is opinion-based and editorialized for clickbait. The author describes O'Donnell's speech as an "unhinged rant," which is subjective and judgmental language, not a factual description that is used to portray her as irrational or emotionally unstable. In short, the article is opinion-based, using many emotional verbs such as "fear mongered", "bizarrely accused," and more. Some claims she made are not factually correct and are rumors or unsupported claims that the author uses to ridicule rather than use neutral reporting on the topic.

The news article itself is critiquing the ties between Donald Trump and Saudi Arabian Prince Mohammed bin Salman. They use a lot of opinionated statements and use a lot of emotionally charged adjectives, as well as miscontruing and simplifying a lot of key issues discussed in this article that change the way a viewer would otherwise understand exactly what has happened, and don't imply meaningful accountability.