Previous Troubling Reports

This article breaks down a post of Donald Trump with Jeffrey Epstein and a minor; however, there is clear evidence that AI generated the photo. This includes a deformity on the girl's left hand, deformities in the facial features of those in the background, and Trump appears only to have one leg. Despite these indications of AI generation, the photo has been widely circulating over social media and Chinese websites.

The article implies that the president is part of a larger Epstein conspiracy and is struggling to address the conflict; however, it does not include any quotes from the president, nor does it include any clear evidence that he was a part of a larger conspiracy. It seems to be mostly speculative and a defamation article

There are numerous problematic parts of this article. The majority of the issues in this article stem from a singular source from the Heritage Foundation, a right-leaning organization. Firstly, the source states that the Chinese Communist Party (CCP) is involved in illegal operations surrounding the Southern Border. However, they do not provide any evidence to support this theory, and even spread unsubstantiated claims that the CCP was actively involved in spreading COVID-19 as a form of bioweapon. Secondly, the source states that there have been "hundreds of thousands" of deaths from fentanyl. This is misleading. While technically correct, a study by Preeti Vankar noted that around 218k people died from fentanyl overdoses between 2021 - 2023. "Hundreds of Thousands" implies far more than 200k, despite being a technically accurate description. There is also no known evidence to suggest that a significant portion of these deaths can be attributed to Chinese nationals. Further, the article argues that Biden's policies directly caused this inflow of fentanyl and Chinese nationals. However, the number of Chinese nationals encountered by border patrol during Biden's administration rose relatively compared to Trump's first administration. While this could mean that more Chinese nationals are illegally crossing the southern border, it could equally mean that the Biden administration has been more successfully cracking down on these crossings. The article makes the unfair assumption that the prior is true.

This article from Breitbart is misleading. The claims the article makes are that Democratic Candidate for New York City Mayor, Assemblyman Zorhan Mamdani, personally benefited from funding towards progressive-leaning groups, paid for by American investor George Soros. While public records indicate that Soros' Open Society Foundations has backed progressive organizations such as the Working Families Party (~$23.7M) and other progressive groups (~$14M), which then later supported and endorsed Mamdani, there is no evidence that Mamdani personally was enriched, nor benefitted from this funding. Breitbart does not include any of Mamdani's campaign disclosures or statements that could validate its claims. The piece accuses Mamdani of guilt by association without linking direct evidence to support its claim of hypocrisy due to the discrepancies between Mamdani's economic campaign message and the funding he has allegedly received. The piece also uses phrases like "far-left kingmaker" and "comic-book villain" to describe Soros, and has the source has regularly used phrases like "radical" and "commie" to describe Mr. Mamdani.

This article from Breitbart is misleading. The claims the article makes are that Democratic Candidate for New York City Mayor, Assemblyman Zorhan Mamdani, personally benefited from funding towards progressive-leaning groups, paid for by American investor George Soros. While public records indicate that Soros' Open Society Foundations has backed progressive organizations such as the Working Families Party (~$23.7M) and other progressive groups (~$14M), which then later supported and endorsed Mamdani, there is no evidence that Mamdani personally was enriched, nor benefitted from this funding. Breitbart does not include any of Mamdani's campaign disclosures or statements that could validate its claims. The piece accuses Mamdani of guilt by association without linking direct evidence to support its claim of hypocrisy due to the discrepancies between Mamdani's economic campaign message and the funding he has allegedly received. The piece also uses phrases like "far-left kingmaker" and "comic-book villain" to describe Soros, and has the source has regularly used phrases like "radical" and "commie" to describe Mr. Mamdani.

This article raises concerns for several reasons. First, it relies heavily on inflammatory and politically charged language, using phrases such as "Israel's genocidal war economy" and "Israel's mass slaughter machine." Such terminology is not only highly provocative but also signals a strong anti-Israel bias. The overall tone paints Israel as inherently sinister, yet the article provides little concrete evidence to substantiate these claims. Additionally, the article points out that many Israeli tech founders have military backgrounds, but then uses this fact to suggest that all Israeli apps and technology are tools for advancing state-sponsored oppression. In reality, these military ties are largely a result of Israel's policy of mandatory service, not evidence of coordinated wrongdoing. The article also fails to demonstrate how Israeli companies use their apps to spy on U.S. citizens, relying instead on the assumption that a military background equates to malicious intent. This lack of substantiated evidence makes the article's arguments shaky, regardless of one's political views.

This article uses biased language by framing mass layoffs as a positive reform, using terms like “bloated bureaucracy” and “put America first,” which echo partisan rhetoric without offering alternative views or critiques. It presents Trump and Rubio’s actions as unquestionably beneficial while excluding voices from affected workers, unions, or policy experts, creating a one-sided narrative. The lack of balance, emotionally charged phrasing, and omission of potential negative consequences make it a biased article. While factual in parts, it borders on misinformation by selectively presenting information that supports a specific political agenda without context or counterpoints. Biasly rates Breitbart as Medium Right and 61% reliable, so this is consistent.

This article suggests that New York City mayoral candidate Zohran Mamdani has at some point supported or is ambiguously supporting the phrase 'globalize the intifada', which is not true. There is no record of him saying the phrase, but asking him to condemn the phrase suggests that he has used it or is in some way connected to it, misrepresenting his political position.

This article is a tricky one. The journalist lays out 4 times they believe that Fox News misled the public on the BBB. What is concerning to me about this article is that the journalist seems to be weaponizing the idea of “misleading” and “misinformation” to sow animosity towards Fox News (and maybe other conservative media outlets, as well). I feel like there is a difference between misleading people and having a different opinion on projected policy outcomes. Having an opinion on these things may not be the news’s place at all, either, but this article is certainly guilty of that as well. This journalist’s evidence for 3/4 of their identified points of misleading information seems like pure whataboutism. “They told viewers about this thing, but they didn’t run a piece on this other thing that could also be bad!” I’m not sure that’s enough to be characterized as misleading to the public; that just seems like how the news works. You can’t report everything. That being said, selection bias is also real… matter of fact, I’m just reporting both this article and the Fox News ones mentioned within it!

This article could be troubling because it uses seemingly accusatory language. It says the Trump administration "fanned conspiracy theories and sparked a resurgence of accusations." However, it did not give evidence to back this up. It also mentioned President Trump "lashed out" at reporters. This could easily be true, but the only evidence they gave of this was Trump's question of "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”

This article uses emotionally charge language, like "Newsom has been obsessed with attacking Trump" and "Newsom has been on the warpath." This article clearly frames Newson in a negative light saying things like "Newsom also lost — badly — in his bid to stop President Trump from deploying the National Guard." While it portrays Trump in a very positive light. It is also more focused on how Newsom has been attacking Trump, rather than reasons why he has not received funding.

This article describes the interaction between President Donald Trump and Bloomberg reporter Annmarie Hordern while onboard Air Force One. Hordern asked Trump questions about the economic impact of his tariffs to which responded “I think your question is stupid.” While this interview is not the most pleasant one, this article definitely portrays Trump in an extremely negative light due to the author’s choice of words. For example, the author states, “Trump used his now familiar tactic of asking: ‘Who are you with?’ ― to sidestep the question.” The author also decided to use loaded verb phrases like “Trump fired back” and “Trump snapped at a reporter.” The headline itself is a clear example of how wording and framing affects impartiality. While the quotes and information itself are accurate, the way in which it was presented was very skewed. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.