Previous Troubling Reports

This article is troubling because it perpetuates theories about President Biden's health. Obviously it is not unlikely for an individual of 81 years to have health problems, however these theories being pushed seem to be an effort to undermine his reelection goals and question his current leadership abilities. The worst part of an article such as this one is that further research from other articles provides more context about the positioning of the chairs and that this short clip is negligible in the larger situation.

For an article claiming to weep over the death of reporting with integrity, this article certainly poisons the well, simply repeating many tired conservative talking points about supposed "Liberal Media Bias". If you want to chastise someone, calling them "a satanic organization that employs a bunch of otherwise unskilled dopes", is, in my opinion, unnecessarily severe. And perhaps you shouldn't tip your hand so much when it comes to your bias, and term Trump's critics "retarded" individuals who only "admonish their (journalist peers) for failing to properly muzzle anyone who doesn't vote Democrat." Certainly the media landscape can be toxic, but poisoning the well like this doesn't help.

Article title makes it seem as though the bulk of it would be about concerns about Trump leading up to the 2024 presidential campaign, however, it is also about other countries concerns about another term with Biden in regards to his aging issue.

While there is no misinformation per se in this article, this article has an extreme liberal bias. This article talks about how the republicans are trying to undermine Biden's education policy.

This article's use of the term "super-spreader" seems to be praying on people's fears during peak Covid times. The article goes on to speak about the dengue virus and the two cases that have been identified in France, in no way does this suggest it would be a super spreader event. The article mentions a similar fear with the Brazil Olympics where people were worried about the spread of Zika, in which there was no real spread. This whole article seems like fear-mongering.

The title of this article is extremely misleading, it implies that non-citizens throughout the country are responsible for well over half the federal arrests made. This is not the case throughout the country, as the author finally makes a caveat in the second half of the article that those statistics only apply to 5 districts along the southern border. The author also compares the statistic to a national statistic "accounted for 15% of all federal arrests and 15% of prosecutions in U.S. district court for non-immigration crimes in 2018" which did not solely apply to the 5 counties he based his original statistics off of. This article is very misleading to the reader, moreover, is extremely misleading to users browsing the site who only read the title of the article as they would be assuming a piece of completely false information.

This article is not any sort of egregious misinformation but it contains biased sentiments. Throughout the article, the author continues to focus on Trump's age and cognitive abilities and simultaneously glosses over Biden's age and abilities. For Trump, "But let’s all remember Donald Trump is just a flatulent old man with an orange spray-tan who fell asleep at his trial,” Illinois Gov. J.B. Pritzker said at the Wisconsin Democratic convention last weekend." Meanwhile for Biden, the comments on his age are just labeled as "selectively edited clips" and as Republicans refusing to comment on Trump's abilities. Overall, a basic reading of this article gives the impression that Trump's age and ability is concerning whereas Biden's is just a bit less than ideal.

This article is somewhat liberal and favors a pro-abortion stance. Throughout the article, it mentions how this sucks for anti-abortion proponents and how plaintiffs failed to show they had suffered any injury and don't have a case. It was also claimed that this decision could have caused chaos and deterred innovation, revealing its stance on the issue. The overall tone of the article depicts that the author isn't upset by the ruling and focuses on how much of a blow this was to individuals against abortion.

It didn't take me long to realize that this article was biased. The headline calls Trump's tax plan "weird," immediately connoting an anti-Trump bias. Furthermore, the article called the January 6th Capitol Attack an insurrection-- which it very well may have been-- but the language choice differs from some more reputable sources that tend to refer to Jan. 6th as an attack, not an insurrection. The author also called something "disastrous" for Republicans which is a pretty biased word choice.

The reason I find this as misinformation is the language used to portray the President and the overall tone of the meeting he had with Republican lawmakers. The article begins by saying Trump was ranting about his legal troubles and rarely focusing on policy. Furthermore, the article used examples of the actions of far-right Republicans in an attempt to generalize the entire party when it came to their stance on Trump's conviction and the Department of Justice. Overall, the article employs a negative tone towards the meeting. Rather than trying to explain the events of the meeting neutrally, CNN used it to show Trump and Republicans in a negative light.

This misinformation is not the most pressing or serious issue in the news currently, nor will it ever really be, because it is about sports. However, this is still a piece of misinformation nonetheless, and has the potential to harm reputations and cause unnecessary disputes. A very reputable source of MLB information, Buster Olney, found his Twitter account to be hacked, wherein "a handful of posts that featured misinformation and engagement farming tactics" were published. False trades, lifetime bans, and team relocations were some of the many claims. This could have had financial implications for the players, teams, and associated economic ties across the league, and above all else, could have seriously threatened Olney's job had it not been cleared up.

The extreme language used suggests that there is a bias regarding the people spoken about. Even in the title, it refers to the Counsel as a "joke" which is not something a neutral person would say. And there are other words used like "absurd" and referring to the Counsel as doing nothing for years. Even though this is a report of what someone said regarding Weiss, it still contains a lot of bias against him and really portrays him negatively.