Previous Troubling Reports

The title is somewhat misleading but the context of the article is what is most biased. Henneke claims that people are traveling more due to "Trumps economy and a more hopeful outlook on the future." He talks about lower gas and egg prices (which depends on location but he does not mention that) and claims that if either Harris or Biden had won the election the cost would of gone up and Americans would not be traveling. Henneke remarks are not backed and just blatantly biased.

The headline implies that the social security commissioner is incompetent by referencing his statement out of context while actually discussing the quote as an ice-breaker and clearly-intended joke throughout the article, making it clear that the headline is intentionally misleading.

Claims that the Former FBI director wrote a book mirroring persecution of Alex Jones is inaccurate. Claims that Alex Jones was persecuted by the Obama administration is inaccurate.

Making claims in this article that are not based on truth or fact but are extremely opinionated.

Making claims in this article that are not based on truth or fact but are extremely opinionated.

The title is misleading/clickbait and only relies on a content creator as the source of the article rather than verified experts.

Joe wasn’t defending Kanye West’s song, he was defending freedom of speech. If you listen to the full segment, Joe points out the irony: Kanye rants against Jewish people, yet likely still buys diamond-encrusted jewelry from them. In America, we have the First Amendment, and defining hate speech is complicated. Joe wasn’t promoting the song; he understands that when something is banned, public curiosity increases. By allowing Kanye to broadcast his music, people can judge for themselves just how vile and disturbing it really is.

Joe wasn’t defending Kanye West’s song, he was defending freedom of speech. If you listen to the full segment, Joe points out the irony: Kanye rants against Jewish people, yet likely still buys diamond-encrusted jewelry from them. In America, we have the First Amendment, and defining hate speech is complicated. Joe wasn’t promoting the song; he understands that when something is banned, public curiosity increases. By allowing Kanye to broadcast his music, people can judge for themselves just how vile and disturbing it really is.

The use of "toxic" is misleading and troubling; sex trafficking and RICO charges as faced by Diddy are not "toxic," they are Federal felonies that carry a potential life sentence. Chris Brown being accused of committing "grievous bodily harm" is not toxic, it is GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. The use of toxic in the headline in the cheapens and lessens the severity of the actions of the offenders. The point of the article is to talk about and criticize the pervasive culture of misogyny and exception for male celebrities, but by calling their actions "toxic" they are adding to the culture they wish to harm, as they are minimizing the actions they want to criticize, particularly since people mostly read headlines. Further, using a less serious word opens the door more for the defenses of these celebrities, since "toxic" is much more personal and culture-war esque language which can be objected to easier than "sex trafficker" and the like.

The title is clickbait and pushes viewers to assume this conspiracy. The article doesn't have any sources coming from reliable experts and relies on quotes from the Bible.

The title of this article can be misleading as the suspect was actually believed to have anti-natalist beliefs rather than anti pro-life beliefs.

The title of this article can be misleading as the suspect was actually believed to have anti-natalist beliefs rather than anti pro-life beliefs.