Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.

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.

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