Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This article only has one source referenced (that isn't even linked), a U Michigan poll. I find this concerning because they are basing their analysis of the sentiments of the whole American public on one study, without considering other sides or ways to evaluate American opinion.

This article from The Wall Street Journal has become a source of contention, as it alleges that President Trump sent Epstein an inappropriate letter, describing the letter in some detail. I consider this concerning news because no confirmation of the letter's veracity or even existence has been shared, so it is contributing to misinformation by sparking the blaze of attention from the public without establishing reliable credibility. Essentially, it is the start of a rumor to cap many other existing rumors, which is concerning, whether it's true or not.

Two things are going on here. One super nitpicky thing, but *technically* their recommendation wasn’t for NO prison time— they recommended a one-day sentence. I know, I know, basically nothing, but still not totally the truth. Secondly, there’s definitely something incendiary about characterizing the DOJ’s legal recommendation as “wanting” the officer to get no prison time. This is a tactic I see a lot, and it’s always coupled with an oversimplification of the situation. The DOJ is not technically supposed to “want” anything, as in try to enact their political will. They’re making legal recommendations based on arguments, evidence, and standards. Or, at least they are supposed to! The journalist provided no evidence to the contrary, so I just have to assume that this was ill-intentioned framing.

This article describes the reintroduction of the Bipartisan Dignity Act, a new and improved immigration reform bill. This piece of legislation would secure the border while allowing certain long-term undocumented immigrants to earn legal status without amnesty or a path to citizenship. Some Republicans have joined Democrats in this effort, including Maria Elvira Salazar, a Republican U.S. representative. This article is extremely one-sided in its reporting and interpretation of the bill. It strongly criticizes Salazar, referring to her as a “so-called Republican” with an “un-American proposal.” The author also heavily criticizes the entire essence of the bill, claiming that mass immigration (whether legal or illegal) “treats America merely as a global economic opportunity zone for anyone who wants to cash in.” In addition, the author writes that this bill would provide mass amnesty, however Salazar herself has stated that this legislation doesn't include amnesty. Instead of giving an impartial/neutral perspective on this new version of the Dignity Act, the author has let their own biases bleed into their writing. This ultimately influences the reader's opinion on the matter. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

The title is incredibly misleading, as it seems to suggest Trump has had an increase in overall approval since the Epstein incident, however this only applies to a poll that showed Trump's approval go up by two points with just Republican voters. This article also disregards numerous other sources that show a decline in approval due to this issue, even amongst Republicans.

The title is incredibly misleading, as it seems to suggest Trump has had an increase in overall approval since the Epstein incident, however this only applies to a poll that showed Trump's approval go up by two points with just Republican voters. This article also disregards numerous other sources that show a decline in approval due to this issue, even amongst Republicans.

This article relies on biased language and unfounded claims, misrepresenting NPR and PBS as far-left propaganda while ignoring their essential role in rural areas with limited access to news and emergency alerts. It uses straw man arguments to paint Democrats as condescending toward rural voters and dismisses real issues like the digital divide. Instead of offering a fact-based critique of public media funding, it leans on emotional, partisan rhetoric that shuts down meaningful discussion.

Politico is a liberal leaning news platform. You can see this in the language used such as "president venting grievances" and "Trump is persuadable." It brings author opinion in to it when the author wrote about this being a theme that she has heard on capital hill. Brining up theories and rumors into professional writing is very difficult, as it helps creates the wrong narrative and can over-exaggerate the story.

The article takes a very clear bias towards the statements of Israel while ignoring context. It blames the U.N for wanting more aid sent in, when Netanyahu blocked all aid for months, and is indicted by the ICC for war criems precisely to do with illegal blockades of food. He assured his cabinet that he had to let in a minimal amount of aid to prevent the world from turning on Israel. Israel's current aid system with the U.S is condemned as inhumane by nearly every single major food or aid group globally. Pretending that the U.N is unreasonable for wanting more aid to Gaza and ignoring how Israel and the U.S are supposed to be responsible for making sure said "undistributed" pallets get distributed, it presents a very one sided, slanted article.