Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.

The article seems to suggest that Trump was just taking a path set up by Obama and Biden to pursue action against Harvard, but fails to note how none of the precedent in place that allows Trump to threaten tax exempt status was due to either, it is from a 1980's SCOTUS decision.

The article excludes key information in favor of gathering negative statements regarding Elon Musk leaving his position at DOGE. The title and quotations act as click- and rage-bait, meant to play on emotions with strong language, rather than relaying information. It is inciting a reaction without grounding the situation. Two key facts would influence the interpretations of the statements in the article: first is that Elon Musk is required to leave after 130 days, and second is that DOGE will continue on without him, somewhat weakening the claims that Elon Musk is simply leaving after committing 'performative vandalism.'

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

This article appears to attack the credibility or independence of, as they say, "experts", not citing examples or reasons beyond their own policy angles and interest in opposition to academics and experts.

Within this article I find it to be very opinionated as well as lacking factual clarity. The headline of the article is a very charged accusation stating "cover up", without balanced evidence or response from different official sources. The article also implies Jill Biden is being officially investigated or accused by the White House which is not the case at this given moment. The overall language of this article is very bias and over the top, using words like "stupid", accusing individuals of lying, etc.

Cherry-picking a random alum from Harvard and writing an extremely slanted article taking what they say as the truth. The article does several things wrong imo. 1. It ignores that Harvard is dealing with the threat of revoked funding and all students with visa's being removed. 2. It conflates antisemitism with anti-Israeli government rhetoric. Now antisemitism is a huge problem that should be taken seriously, and there are valid criticisms that Harvard has not done enough to curb it, but conflating anti-Israeli government protests and rhetoric with antisemitism is inaccurate and harmful journalism. It also supposes that a university cannot do 2 things at the same time, both fight legal battles that jeopardize the university and crack down on antisemitism.