Previous Troubling Reports

While nothing is inherently incorrect in this article, it puts an extreme emphasis on the national impacts of the election. While there are some theories that this will send waves throughout the DNC, saying it definitely will may be an overstatement that, so far, has not had enough time to indicate what will happen.

While nothing is inherently incorrect in this article, it puts an extreme emphasis on the national impacts of the election. While there are some theories that this will send waves throughout the DNC, saying it definitely will may be an overstatement that, so far, has not had enough time to indicate what will happen.

This article described the Trump administration’s recent decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites during ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. While the author gave lots of details on the B-2 bunker-buster bombs and the newly announced ceasefire, there were a very large number of opinion statements presented as fact. The author made it clear that he did not agree with Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. He strongly backed Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal that Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The author stated, “That outcome [the JCPOA] should be the preferred objective of U.S. policy.” A lot of loaded language/rhetoric was used to criticize Trump and those who supported his decision. The author claimed that anyone who feels relief after this bombing should be cautious, claiming that the “euphoria will soon wear off.” In addition, the article seems to be one-sided, presenting only the author’s side of the issue without including any counter arguments. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article used very biased language to talk about the recent event of Trump launching bombs at Iran. This could be misinformation because instead of talk about the problem at hand, the article just bashes Trumps character.

First, the article does not define what ICE's "job" even is. The article does not mention the survey size is 1,512 people until after its most inflammatory extrapolations, and it is buried between hyperlinked ads. The article is written in a way that attempts to extrapolate the views of 700-900 people onto the nation, as it rarely says anything such as "a majority of respondents" rather just "a majority".

First, the article does not define what ICE's "job" even is. The article does not mention the survey size is 1,512 people until after its most inflammatory extrapolations, and it is buried between hyperlinked ads. The article is written in a way that attempts to extrapolate the views of 700-900 people onto the nation, as it rarely says anything such as "a majority of respondents" rather just "a majority".

This article doesn't explain any of the methods that were used to conduct this poll. It doesn't mention how many people were polled or anything about them. It just showcases this one polls that shows Trump in a positive light, while there are numerous other polls that have different results.

The article claims that the U.S. bombing Iran was due to his "Khazarian handlers." There is no evidence that indicates this is the case, but the article uses a lot of highly pointed and inflammatory claims, including "that whole carefully cultivated image of [Trump] being a political ‘dove’ was fastidiously created by his ever-manipulative Khazarian handlers over decades" and "Khazarian handlers mentored and mind-controlled, trained and socially engineered [Trump]...for his second [civilization-destroying] term." All of it is speculative, without proof or evidence, and clearly very politicized.

Within this article there are many loaded bias phrases by the author. Term such as "obliterated", "must destroy", or "completely and totally obliterated" demonstrate powerful imagery which amplifies a dramatic effect pushing for a militaristic narrative. I would also say that this article relies heavily on statements from President Trump, the Pentagon, and Israeli elites and does not include information from Iran officials or regional experts making the narrative kind of one sided. In addition, the article provides insufficient detail on alternatives, civilian impact, or the long-term consequences at hand.

This article is slightly misleading as it does not have any proper sources/citations linked within the article to prove some of the claims made within it regarding Trump's decisions surrounding Iran.

The title of this article is somewhat biased, though not as much as the article itself. The author, Joe Sommerlad, uses facts in an attempt to convince readers that his opinions are also factual. Instead of simply presenting factual information and quotes, he inserts his opinions throughout the piece.

This article describes the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, along with Donald Trump and the United States’ possible intervention. Throughout the article, the author claimed that the Trump administration has credibility problems. He included multiple quotes from Donald Trump himself and from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The quotes were compared to eventually find contradictory information about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. While the article uses multiple sources and different quotes to boost its reliability and credibility, it does insert some inherent bias on behalf of the author about Donald Trump in general. The author states, “Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says,” and “Trump often seems to say whatever’s politically expedient at a given point in time.” The author also heavily pointed to Trump manipulating intelligence to purposely lie to the American people. Some of these comments were a little unnecessary in telling a truly unbiased/neutral story. When a journalist lets their own opinions bleed into their writing, the presentation of the information is skewed. This is why I think this CNN news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.