Previous Troubling Reports

This article includes multiple ad hominem attacks against Norma Torres from unverified sources, questioning her sanity and political affiliation while also promoting calls for removing her from office and arresting her. This sort of extrapolation from a single tweet helps incite further violence and political division.

The article assumes that the Biden administration pushed the FBI to pursue an anti-Catholic agenda due to an alleged memo that gave the agency a green light to pursue innocent Americans based on their faith; however, there is no evidence of a memo, and the whistleblower making the accusation is unnamed. Furthermore, the article lacks sources, and although it claims that this is hard evidence, it proceeds to manipulate its quotations within the body of the article to reinforce the author's opinion.

The article reports that House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries supports identifying ICE agents, many of whom wear masks to conceal their identities. It then claims that Democrats want to hand over ICE agents to cartels, which greatly exaggerates the original statement.

This article's headline says Trump threatened Elon Musk with "serious consequences" for donating to democrats. However, Trump's quote says, "If he does, he'll have to pay the consequences for that." This was in response to a reporter's question about whether Musk plans to support Democratic candidates in the 2026 midterm elections. He doesn't mention specific consequences, let alone serious ones.

This headline is intentionally misleading as the article relies on a study from mice. It admits there is yet to be a study linking the finding of this study to humans.

The article uses language that frames Elon Musk’s allegations about Trump and Epstein in a negative light, describing Musk’s comments as a “tirade” and saying he “crossed the line.” It highlights GOP lawmakers’ strong criticism of Musk while mostly presenting defenses of Trump, often dismissing the claims without much evidence. Some remarks question Musk’s judgment or motives, and the article includes statements from the White House and sources that defend Trump. Overall, the wording and focus create a tone that is critical of Musk and protective of Trump, which could bias readers against Musk’s allegations.

Ro Khanna and Matt Yglesias are not elected democrats. Richie Torres, on the only elected democrat who claimed to be open to reconciling with Musk, is one of the most conservative/sympathetic voting records of any Dem. Every other Democrat lawmaker who has been asked has explicitly said they will not embrace Musk and still consider him a corrupt oligarch. The article cites the words of AOC, Markey, and Jamall Brown calling him a Nazi or wanabee dictator, but none of them have backtracked on that. The opposite in fact. The article is deliberately finding the few outliers who did not say these things about Musk and conflating them with the elected officials who are, to spread a false narrative that democrats are now embracing trump.

This article describes the recent conflict between President Donald Trump and former government official Elon Musk. Musk attacked Trump online via X comments over Trump's tax cut and spending bill. The article laid out possible consequences of this conflict for the future of the Republican party. While the article successfully describes the incident and includes direct quotes from important people like Elon's advisors, it does use very strong words/phrases. The authors of the article described Trump and Elon's initial relationship as a "bromance" and "buddy-trip movie." Later on in the piece, Republicans were described as "the kids caught between parents in the midst of a possibly brutal divorce." While politics is surely a messy platform, I feel as though the wording used by the authors was a little unnecessary. Biased language can contribute to misinformation/skew the presentation of the information, even when the facts themselves are correct. Specific word choices or phrases can influence a reader's opinion. This is why I believe the news article to be slightly troubling.

Thumbnail on Huffpost site says: From: Elon Musk / To: Donald Trump / Re: 5 Things I Did. The thumbnail and title frame the article as a list of 5 things Musk said himself that he did, when the actual article states that it's a list Huffpost (the source) is making, which is misleading. Then, the article proceeds with highly biased framing words. It is an article aiming at being a satire of Musk's early initiative for government employees to send a list of 5 things they accomplished in the previous week to their bosses. The headline and thumbnail attract clicks in order to place a humorous and biased take on a situation the author wants to express negativity about -- which isn't in itself misinformation, but the method of attraction is misleading.

Within this article there are facts due to the tensions between Trump and Musk did occur, and are still occurring, but there are many phrases and words that have a bias standpoint, leaning mostly left. This article cites sources that are "familiar with internal discussions" without providing names or positions. Meaning that the article lacks diverse viewpoints and counterarguments. The author refers to the feud as "public mudslinging" and mentions President Trump's "online barbs" and "grievance filled posts". Personally, I believe that these statements make President Trump seem aggressive and narrow minded. In addition, the phrase "Trump's latest attacks" imply Trump has an aggressive or pattern of behavior. The author also portrays the tension between Musk and Trump, but Trump is portrayed as a sort of aggressor and Musk is framed more neutral.

This article, while stating facts about an event that did occur, is slightly biased and misleading, using biased terminology such as "pro-migrant Democrats are protesting Trump's pro-American policies." It also seems to correlate general immigrants to terror attacks perpretrated by individuals, which could be seen as misleading.

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.