Previous Troubling Reports

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

The title of this article is misleading. It suggests that Jeffrey Epstein helped boost Donald Trump's ratings while he was alive. In reality, the article only discusses a tweet from Trump in which he claims to have exposed the "Radical Left Democrats'" Epstein hoax. Additionally, the article is filled with strongly biased, anti-Trump language. For example, it calls him things like a "sleazebag" or says he's having a "mental breakdown." This obvious left-leaning bias may undermine the credibility of the article's arguments, even if its points are valid.

This article frames Democrats as "attempting to bash Trump," instead of showing the situation as a policy discussion. The article also emphasizes Trumps's successes by showing egg drop prices, while minimizing context about overall year-over-year increases. Opposing viewpoints are also minimized and presented with language like "doubled down" and "shot back," while Republican responses are described neutrally.

The article uses biased and misleading language by presenting Trump’s policy as a clear improvement without showing alternative perspectives. It only includes quotes from Trump officials and supporters, which causes the piece to feel one-sided. Phrases like “strengthens religious accommodations” and emotional appeals about choosing between faith and work influence the reader to see the policy as unquestionably good. By referencing alleged Biden “crackdowns” without evidence, the article creates a contrast that favors Trump. Leaving out any legal concerns or impacts on other groups makes it harder for readers to fully understand the issue. This kind of framing causes the article to push a political narrative rather than report neutrally.

The article uses biased and misleading language by presenting Trump’s policy as a clear improvement without showing alternative perspectives. It only includes quotes from Trump officials and supporters, which causes the piece to feel one-sided. Phrases like “strengthens religious accommodations” and emotional appeals about choosing between faith and work influence the reader to see the policy as unquestionably good. By referencing alleged Biden “crackdowns” without evidence, the article creates a contrast that favors Trump. Leaving out any legal concerns or impacts on other groups makes it harder for readers to fully understand the issue. This kind of framing causes the article to push a political narrative rather than report neutrally.

While true, this article shares this information in an unnecessary way. It shares how President Trump "likes to boast" and how he likes to "make up stories filled with dramatic but fictional details." While these are not necessarily false, they still offer a sense of bias. Instead of sharing the true information objectively, the article seems to place more of an attack on the President.

This is simply false, there is no evidence Biden used an autopen. And even if he did, it would not make the documents he signed less binding. This article only aims to make people dislike Biden and Democrats, not spread true information.

During the build-up to the RNC national convention last year, rumours began to circulate that Starbucks was a sponsor of the convention. However, the company did not provide a cash sponsorship of any kind. The rumour most likely gained traction because Starbucks was serving beverages at the convention, though they were not a sponsor.

While this article does provide factual information and quotes, there are some instances where the language is used in the narrative sections could be considered bias. Phrases such as "as he seeks downplay" or connecting President Trump's actions to "conspiracy theories" give the interpretation of events and certain motives rather than simply reporting the solid facts. The article's framing of Trump's statements and actions tend to lean towards a critical perspective, specifically in how it characterizes his attempts. This reading is not overly biased with strong emotional language, but there are subtle choices of language and framing of President Trump's actions suggest perspective. A reader who is already critical of President Trump might see this as objective reporting, while a supporter may see this as biased.

This article describes the recent vote in the Senate on the rescission package that would cut billions of dollars in government spending. The package ended up passing in the Senate, however, it faced a lot of objections from Democratic Senators. The final vote was 51-48. This article strongly criticizes the Democrats in the Senate on their vote and is extremely one-sided. The author states, “every single Democrat present (and two Republicans) voted to waste $9 billion in American taxpayer money to keep funding far-left propaganda outlets NPR and PBS.” The author also called both of the Republicans who voted against this bill “notoriously weak.” Finally, the author called NPR and PBS “notorious bad actors” who “show deep disdain for America, Americans, and humanity generally.” It is important to note that this article falls under a government category, and is not listed as an opinion piece on the site. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.