Previous Troubling Reports

Despite the title of the article, the actual content emphasizes the idea that Trump will likely not face jail time. The author cites expert Norm Eisen and writes that the probability is around one in ten that he will be convicted. However, this does not consider the fact that he was convicted on 34 counts of falsifying business records. Furthermore, this article only mentions that he might face up to four years of jail time for his crimes despite the fact that each falsified business record has the possibility of four years of jail time.

This is troubling because although it does not claim an abundance of claims rooted in personal sentiments or arguments from the author, it utilizes 'facts' and 'details' from other sources that are unequivocally incorrect or misconstrued. Former President Trump claimed that Biden aimed to kill him during the search of his Mar-a-Lago estate previously. However, the language Trump referenced is a standard policy statement used for issuing search warrants and was not unique to the FBI’s search of his property. It is actually meant to limit the use of deadly force. This article pulls quotes from a recently unsealed court filing without providing much context and clearly without elaborating on the truth of such claims.

There is an evident bias against Biden's campaign ad, and De Niro, who appears in this ad. This is indicated by how the title refers to De Niro's appearance in the ad as a "clown show". Also, while the author does well at quoting the ad, she only uses comments that speak negatively about the ad. Lastly, the editor's note states, "America won't survive another four years of a Democrat president. We must take back the White House." Here, the editor puts in their own views on who should be president.

There is a notable lack of information to support some of the article's statements. For example, the author writes, "...this campaign finance violation comes with a fine, not jail time. Most cases of this nature come with a slap on the wrist. When jail time was recommended in past cases, most were no more than a month." No outside evidence is given to verify the information about these consequences for campaign finance violations. Trump's trial is also portrayed negatively when the author states, "The trial focused on...which are charges seldom brought to trial because it’s not worth the hassle." This indicates that the trial is unnecessary, which is part of the author's own personal bias. Another display of the author's bias is when he writes, "While exoneration should be the verdict..." Here, he inserts his own opinion about what the result of the trial should be.

Overall, the information seems solid and logical. They present numbers to back up their claims. However, they still use extreme language to describe Biden and paint him and his choices in a very negative light. Using imagery and words like "immoral" and saying that his actions are the complete opposite of a the well known Robin Hood. All in all, these references and specific word choices lean the article towards biased, as even though numbers are inherently neutral, those numbers are surrounded by biased words and phrases.

considering this is an opinion article, it is unlikely that there is any meaningful evidence to back up the claims stated.

This article is troubling to me due to the very explicit ultra-nationalist bias. It pushes a conservative narrative of "us versus them" without even attempting to disguise it. It frames other countries as 'evil' for doing the same things as the U.S. and it is concerning to see American media not able to accept free trade.

This articles linked sources do not actually link to anything related to the article, but to the paper's archives about a specific topic- for example "student debt forgiveness" does not link to anything about the Biden administration's student debt forgiveness plan, but every article the Washington Examiner has published on student loans. The link on Biden's "profligate spending" takes you to an archive entitled "Bidenomics" with a compilation of anti-Biden articles including "Despite Biden's lies, voters know inflation still hurts" and "Voter's don't trust Biden on inflation, and they shouldn't". To be fair, this should probably have been expected from an outlet that markets its contents as "News, Politics, (and) conservative opinion" but you would still expect a media source to be at least superficially impartial.

Levin's comments aside, the author makes false claims. Author mentions the"“mostly peaceful” pro-Hamas protesters" addressing the college campus protest, making it seem as if they are supporting a terrorist group. In reality, most protesters denounce the murder of civilians and support Palestinian people. The author also states that "the protesters who were actually quite peaceful on January 6 are facing prison time". However there are numerous reports and video footage of the violence and attacks on police during the Capitol Riots, so this is not correct at all.

While many of the facts listed here may be factual, there are no cited sources indicating the validity of these statements. Because of this, someone could unknowingly have the wrong information.

The events addressed from this article by BBC failed to provide comments that went into details about the hostages held by Gaza. There has been previous allegations by BBC journalist that they have been omitting certain information in regards to the Israel conflict. This could be why they are now over-fixating on making Israel negative. When they should fixate on giving the news as neutral as possible.

This is just one of many articles circulating with wording implying the ICC has decided on issuing arrest warrants. These have collectively drummed up a lot of social media discussion and debate. It is worth noting that at the time of writing this, warrants have not been issued. Moreover, as Israel is not part of the ICC, these warrants pose few consequences besides messaging.