Previous Troubling Reports

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.

This article has a more conservative bias which could contribute to it being less reliable, omitting some facts, or false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small which could mean it doesn't have any of these characteristics.

There is more conservative bias in this which may contribute to being less reliable, omission, and false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small, so it may not have any of these characteristics.

There is more conservative bias in this which may contribute to being less reliable, omission, and false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small, so it may not have any of these characteristics.

There is more conservative bias in this which may contribute to being less reliable, omission, and false reporting. However, the bias does seem to be small, so it may not have any of these characteristics.

The phrasing of this title makes it seem as though he was a suspected ISIS terrorist when he was released, but he was not. This is a clear bias and is not reliable.

The bias from the title makes it seem like the media wants you to forget even though the media did report on these things. This portrays a clear conservative bias. It also claims that the media refuses to revisit Biden's lies even though this is also untrue.

Fauci didn't say there was "no science behind it," he said that there were little to no clinical trials supporting it. This does not mean there was no science behind the decision. The article is also quite biased in disagreeing with past COVID guidelines.

This is troubling because it doesn't show any examples or provide any proof of this claim. The reader is just supposed to take him on his word even though he doesn't support his word with facts. It is also very clearly biased.

There is no actual proof to these allegations. They are claiming it is fact but not providing any support for this fact.