Previous Troubling Reports

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.

This article is misleading beginning with the title. In my opinion I believe the title of this article is unprofessional utilizing the word "beef". The rest of the article appears to be misleading and biased in it's focus and framing, primarily presenting the Republican perspective on Elon Musk's potential new political party and its impact. The article repeatedly highlights highlights how Musk's party could "cost Republicans unified control", "peel off more Republican than Democratic voters", etc. This constant emphasis on the negative aspects for one specific party contributes to biased framing.

This article is misleading as it subtly hints at the reason California hasnt received aid for the fires in January is due to Newsome focusing on "Trump" despite having requested federal aid but not receiving it.

This article uses inflammatory language towards immigrants in an effort to further divide people on the topic. The title is also clickbait, Bass did not use the word illegals to describe the population of migrants in LA. The article tries to blame the overspending in the US budget on providing healthcare(which many would consider an essential right) to immigrants, but fails to mention other hot-button issues of overspending like defense, as well as the recent medicaid cuts to millions of American citizens by the Trump administration. Overall, this storys purpose serves to spark more debate and hate rather than educate or correctly portray what politicians like Karen Bass actually spoke about.

This article shows clear bias and spreads misinformation through emotionally charged language and one-sided reporting. It labels Mayor Karen Bass a “radical Democrat” and dismisses her concerns as “moaning,” while repeatedly using the dehumanizing term “illegals” instead of “undocumented immigrants.” It misrepresents the issue by ignoring the legal requirement for hospitals to treat all emergency patients and leaves out the fact that many undocumented immigrants pay taxes without full benefits. The article also cites large, unverified cost figures without credible sources or context, making them misleading. By only including anti-immigration voices and omitting public health or expert perspectives, it lacks balance and promotes fear rather than facts.

This article shows clear bias and spreads misinformation through emotionally charged language and one-sided reporting. It labels Mayor Karen Bass a “radical Democrat” and dismisses her concerns as “moaning,” while repeatedly using the dehumanizing term “illegals” instead of “undocumented immigrants.” It misrepresents the issue by ignoring the legal requirement for hospitals to treat all emergency patients and leaves out the fact that many undocumented immigrants pay taxes without full benefits. The article also cites large, unverified cost figures without credible sources or context, making them misleading. By only including anti-immigration voices and omitting public health or expert perspectives, it lacks balance and promotes fear rather than facts.

Speculates based on social media posts that traffic is clear in LA because of mass deportations, although other sources (such as https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/traffic-on-busiest-la-highway-vanishes-amid-ice-raids-wild-x-video-claims-101752110711906.html, which notably is also only going off of spcial media posts and should not be fully trusted either) note that there are voices doubting the veracity of the poster's statements, even doubting that the road depicted in posted video is the one the poster says it is. The Infowars article is standing beside a claim without duly verifying that it is factual, contributing to potential misinformation as the original post takes potentially doctored information and attributes political meaning to it.