Previous Troubling Reports

This article makes a large generalization linking a certain baby food with traces of lead to autism. It claims lead can create autism. However, the article later admits there isn't enough research to make a direct link.

This article makes a large generalization linking a certain baby food with traces of lead to autism. It claims lead can create autism. However, the article later admits there isn't enough research to make a direct link.

The title of this article is alarming and clearly designed to attract “clicks.” The content itself is equally troubling. The author, Brianna Lyman, presents only one side of the story, portraying the family as terrorists on the same level as the accused. She fails to mention whether the family was aware of the attack or clarify their legal status. Perhaps most concerning are the author’s attacks on the judiciary. She openly expresses her negative views of the judicial system, stating, “this isn’t the first time an unelected judge has usurped the authority of the executive branch.” While she includes other critical remarks about judges, these are quoted directly. This narrative, which suggests judges are undermining the executive branch, threatens the vital system of checks and balances and deserves serious attention.

The editorializing and framing of the title alone is so severe, it edges over into the misinformation side of things. The original article being referenced never once claimed or implied that the public should not feel sorry for the victims of a terrorist attack. The evidence this article provided for its claim against USA Today’s article was that the USA Today article 1. the journalist did not do a profile on the victims, and 2. focused the piece on the challenges the perpetrator’s daughter is facing. Neither of these things indicates that USA Today wants the public not to feel sorry for the victims of the attack. Some of the editorializing within this article as well also leans into misinformation.

This is a very troubling headline as there is a growing trend of portraying the courts as an adversary or rival for politicians, but this is not and should not be true. The Courts are concerned with legality, not in making in policy. They are not delivering a "smackdown" rather a ruling and opinion on legality. Normally this portrayal of the Courts comes from the right, but the left using it in a gloating sense as shown here creates the same issues and affirms the baseless claims from the right

The linked article asserts that the “Biden White House” lied about cancer risk, but it provides no evidence. Initial publicly available statistics indicated no adverse health effects, yet many East Palestine residents report unusual symptoms after the accident, which has fueled skepticism. It is possible that those early studies were incomplete or biased, but the article’s headline attributes nearly all responsibility to President Biden, ignoring other contributing factors. For example, some health assessments were conducted by firms contracted by Norfolk Southern after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered cleanup of the contamination: “much of the sampling data they use comes from firms contracted by Norfolk Southern, after the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency ordered the company to clean up the contamination” (https://www.cbsnews.com/news/east-palestine-ohio-train-derailment-residents-health-issues-norfolk-southern/). That context is absent from the article, which places all blame on the Biden administration. The full situation is more complex.

This CNN article could be troubling because it seems to provide a negative connotation to someone with a different point of view. For example, one bystander stated that they disagree with combining males and females in competition. The article then mentioned this bystander misgendered A.B. Additionally, the article put quotation marks around "biological field" and "biological female" - both of which were unnecessary. The article also mentions research on transgender biological advantages, but does not provide examples or a rebuttal to claims.

This article mentions that the artificial sweeteners used in Diet Coke could put someone at risk of weight gain, but other sources say that a possible risk of Diet Coke is an underconsumption of calories, the opposite of what is being claimed in this article. The article makes many claims about Diet Coke and its ingredients, often saying that these ingredients are linked to certain health effects, but these cannot be verified without a more comprehensive review of the research around the topic.

This article mentions that the artificial sweeteners used in Diet Coke could put someone at risk of weight gain, but other sources say that a possible risk of Diet Coke is an underconsumption of calories, the opposite of what is being claimed in this article. The article makes many claims about Diet Coke and its ingredients, often saying that these ingredients are linked to certain health effects, but these cannot be verified without a more comprehensive review of the research around the topic.

The characterization of budget cuts throughout this article carry negative connotations, using adjectives such as "stark", "deep", "steepest". It focuses on the perspectives of Democrat leaders and the negative consequences of the budget cuts, rather than Trump's motives behind it.

The New York Post article on the Wisconsin judge’s claim of absolute immunity accurately reports her legal argument but does not provide full context about how absolute immunity is limited by law and has been narrowly applied by courts. This omission can mislead readers into thinking absolute immunity is broader than it legally is, potentially downplaying the seriousness of the indictment against her.

The title of this article is slightly misleading. It mentions international students at the beginning, but goes more into Trump's plan to pull finding from Harvard and his plan to create "the greatest trade school system anywhere in the world," without providing any further evidence about how this could be accomplished or the implications for international students.