Previous Troubling Reports

The headline for this article does not present the information in the correct light. While Biden had said that the results of the plan did not quite meet the expectations prior to its implementation, he never admitted that the plan was a failure. This title exaggerates the truth to the extent that it could be classified as misinformation.

This article is troubling from the start because it repeats the quote from Steve Scalise twice. It shows that it was not done with much caution as it should be.

First of all, this article claims that supporters of a childcare program are 'emasculating men'. The GOP rep suggests trying to remove such programs to make men feel a part of the family again. This is simply complete blasphemy. not only is this article blatantly degrading a basic child support program, but he is also making it seem like men have no place anymore, without providing evidence.

This news is troubling because it is extremely biased. It states speculation as facts; for instance, the article writes "press aides with microphones, ready to silence tricky question." The article completely slanders the president and paints him in a much worse condition than he is actually in.

This article claims that Trump is not involved in project 2025 when there are multiple sources that indicate he , in fact was involved.

It's hard to find any US news in recent days that's not about the supposed (un)viability of President Biden to continue in his current capacity; but articles like these exemplify the worst tendencies of the discourse- ravenous speculation that seems to wish the President would crash and burn.How else to read quotes like these?"Watching President Biden’s press conference last night, I thought: Joe Biden knows. He knows at some level that he shouldn’t be running again.That level is still subterranean. He’s still in denial. He can’t really even acknowledge to himself yet that he should step aside, let alone say it, or act on it.But he knows. He knows that he’s very unlikely to win, and he knows, I think, that he’s not up to governing for four more years."It's distasteful, if nothing else.

This article misrepresents Trump's connection to Project 2025. It reports that Trump claimed that he had no ties to the 900-page long conservative agenda, but this has been debunked (https://www.cnn.com/2024/07/11/politics/trump-allies-project-2025/index.html). In fact, at least 140 people that have worked for Trump in the past are behind Project 2025, so this article is misleading in not highlighting that Trump was not articulating the truth in his post.

I read this article and was immidietly troubled by it. While the uathor initialy starts of in a a positive note where the author says that he no is talking about abortion itself because of the sensitivety and mixed feelings around the issue. However, in later passages, the author begins to say stuff such as killing a human being, no one wants to be a murderer etc. all of this is not an accurate portrayal of what abortion really is. There have been clear reports that say the fetus is not being till about 10-weeks. Furthurmore, this entire article has a right leaning bias.

This article expresses concerns that Democrats knew long beforehand about Biden's aging and covered it up. Thus, after Clooney's letter in which he suggested Biden step down, the author of this article said that Clooney was part of the problem of lying to the people. This article is troubling because it often takes speculation for a fact. For example, the author repeatedly refers to Biden's condition as a "secret" that Clooney was in on long before writing this article. However, there is no proof in this article that Clooney had any other reasons to believe Biden was unfit for office before watching Biden's behavior in recent weeks. Furthermore, the article uses very biased language, such as saying that "it never occurred to Clooney that he should tell the average American that there are animatronics at Chuck E. Cheese more lifelike than the leader of their nation," because he was trying to cover it up himself.

This article is technically correct; people who had been associated with President Trump did contribute to the Project 2025 ideation and drafting. However, what is not made clear to the reader is that many of these people were not recently working for Trump, and had not been working for him during the final drafting of Project 2025. This article sets out to make Trump seem to be lying about his involvement in Project 2025 and seems to suggest he has a bigger role. With the facts we know now, we can not say that is true.

Many sources on X and on news aggregators across the web were perpetually spreading the claim that CNN imposed a delay on their broadcasting of the first presidential debate in order to edit parts if needed. The delay was said to be one-two minutes long. However, this claim has been disproved by a plethora of sources and is evidently false. With the original post receiving over 7,000 likes on X, and even more having viewed the claim via circulation across media platforms, it is troubling how quickly Americans tend to believe either what they want to believe or what any old source tells them is true.

This article is troubling because it is extremely biased and does not adhere to specific facts. The author makes their negative stance on Trump clearly known, and simultaneously seeks to undermine President Biden. A particularly subjective quote about Biden reads: “And so there was a distinct cruelty to it all, the spectacle of a man of eighty-one, struggling terribly with memory, syntax, nerves, and fragility, his visage slack with the dawning sense that his mind was letting him down and that, as a result, he was letting the country down.” Remnick continues, “This was an event that, if unremedied, could bring the country closer to another Trump Presidency and with it a diminishment of liberal democracy.” Regardless of one’s opinion on either man, the article is problematic because of its complete lack of factual evidence. The argument for Biden’s competency, or even Trump’s, should be supported by outside facts.