Previous Troubling Reports

The Federalist article about First Choice Women’s Resource Centers is misleading not because the basic facts are wrong, but because of how the story is framed. It labels New Jersey’s subpoena as “Democrat lawfare,” suggesting political targeting, even though court records show the subpoena is part of a standard consumer-protection investigation. The article also leaves out important context about why the state began looking into the center in the first place, including concerns that it may have misrepresented its services to clients and donors. By using loaded language and only presenting the center’s viewpoint, the article creates the impression that the investigation is strictly political, which can mislead readers about the real regulatory issues at play.

This article makes troubling claims about the intentions of both Trump and Putin in a future summit in Alaska. From the beginning, the author wrote Trump off as incapable of having a backbone in the presence of Russia's leader, and presumes that Putin will successfully manipulate him. More importantly, the article makes some outlandish claims about support for Ukraine and its sovereignty. I wrote an extensive thesis for my Honors undergraduate degree that dealt with NATO and U.S.-Russia relations, exploring the purpose of NATO and Putin's 'thin red line'. It is not pro-Russia to explain Putin's long-standing opposition to NATO membership and the integrated military structure of NATO on the border of Russia. "Not one inch eastward" is a direct quote attributed to sitting U.S. officials during the unification of Germany, referring to a compromise with Russia about NATO expansion. The compromise allowed Germany to join NATO if the U.S. did not expand the organization eastward, since Russia feared military and intelligence capabilities at its border. The United States would break this promise not ten years later. The author calls the idea of Trump not supporting Ukraine with U.S. taxpayer money as being pro-Russia, which relies heavily on the understanding that the reader is misinformed or lacks a historical perspective on NATO or this conflict. There is even substantial evidence in founding NATO documents that proves one original goal of the organization was to "co-opt and contain Russian power." Regarding Ukrainian sovereignty, the United States enacted a coup in Ukraine in 2014, using various NGOs like the Open Society Foundation and the National Endowment for Democracy, similarly to what occurred in Georgia in 2003, a nation also coincidentally on Russia's border. A nation is not, at least, entirely sovereign if the West can overthrow its democratically elected leaders. Russia's invasion of Ukraine is a travesty, but omitting the extensive research involved in a well-rounded understanding of this conflict is clear bias. Selectively calling certain truths pro-Russia and calling others "sympathetic to Ukraine" demonstrates the source's proclivity for labeling inconvenient information to their narrative.

The article claims that the person who stole the identity of an American was a murderer who killed two people in a car accident. That, however, is not exactly true. Perez-Bravo does have a wrongful death lawsuit against him, but he was cleared of all criminal charges. What actually happened was that the serpentine belt broke causing Perez-Bravo to lose control of the car. He was fully cooperative and the police cleared him of any wrong doing.

I found this article misleading as it labels the subpoena placed on the pregnancy center as "lawfare." Thus, the article frames the subpoena as if it was an act of targeted violence or impediment without even getting into any evidence or support for this claim.

The misinformation in this article comes from Trump's claim that the Democratic lawmakers are traitors just because they are encouraging the military to refuse orders from Trump that are illegal.

This article examines growing presure on Republican lawmakers as ACA premium millions subsides approach expiration, potentially triggering sharp increases in health insurance costs for millions of Americans. It outlines how the looming deadline has created political uergency, with Democrats signaling oppenness to extending subsides while Republicans struggle to present a cohensive alternative health-care strategy. The report frames the situation as a policy gap that is becoming more acute as insurers being setting next year's rates. However, the piece characterizes Republican efforts as fragmented and slow-moving, emphasizing that internal disagreements and the absence of a unified plan have left the party vulnerable to criticism. While the article does include comments from several Republican lawmakers, their statements are generally brief and defensive,contrasted with more detailed warnings from policy analysts and Democratic officials about consequences of inacation. This narrative choice creats an asymmetry in how each side's positions are represneted. Overall, this article adopt a tone that is factual but subly critical, suggesting that Republican hesitation could contribute to significant disruptions in the health insurance marketplace. The framing, word choice , and limited exploration of pro-Republic policy arguments produce a liberal leaning, althogh the journalist who wrote it trid to make it moderate. Despit referencing mutiple sources, the emphasis consistently falls on risks and potential negative outcomes associated with Republican policy delays, shaping reader expections about necessity of prompt legislative action.

This article has a clear liberal bias from MSNBC. While it does highlight the fact that President Trump and NYC Mayor-elect Mamdani had more to agree on than anticipated, it is highly critical of Trump's words regarding the Mayor-elect during his campaign period. Additionally, it links to a tweet from Senator Rick Scott calling Mamdani a communist about to be schooled by Trump. It continually portrays the President and Republican Senator in a negative light while highlighting the positives of Mamdani's campaign with no mention of the names Mamdani had for Trump during the campaign.

the article has a particular framing that depends on how you read it with its tone and sources.

The report is based on facts, but it is framed in a way that people could take it as misleading. It states "charm offensive" which can suggest Mamdani deliberately tried to win over Trump. It also states New Yorkers are "cautiously optimistic".

This article is troubling because it makes tense foreign relations claims without any real or credible evidence to support them, and without mention of any evidence that disputes them. This is standard selection and omission bias from this news source, which I had admittedly never read before this article. The article claims with utmost certainty that the current Prince of Saudi Arabia ordered the murder of Jamal Khashoggi, a reporter, without any citations for this claim. Upon further research, the only source claiming that is the CIA, a source that has been proven to be manipulative and, in many instances, has placed the organization's interests above the lives of U.S. citizens, foreign nationals, and journalistic truth. Without lingering too long on this topic, I would recommend researching the CIA's foreign involvement in the heroin trade, starting with the Vietnam War but continuing during the Afghanistan War, as well. Also relevant to this source's CIA citation would be the back-channel CIA black funded operations conducted on U.S. soil during the 60's, like CHAOS, MKULTRA or COINTELPRO, conducted by U.S. intelligence on American citizens. Additionally, this article uses a myriad of emotive language to express the author's overwhelming discontent with Trump's foreign policy and presidency as a whole. Some of these words and phrases include: moral repugnancy, blankness, appalling, contemptible, and disrespect, nearly all aimed at Trump or the Saudi Prince. My writing here is in no way trying to deny or downplay the horrific execution of a Washington reporter, but to blame someone for a crime of this nature requires diverse and reliable source evidence. The article clearly depends on the audience not conducting its own research and takes every opportunity to attack Trump and blame him, by association, for the Khashoggi murder.

I will preface this by saying that I did not realize it actually said "Opinion" until I clicked on the article itself. However, it was placed on the front page of MS's website under the section "Must Reads", and there it did not advertise itself as an opinion article. I think that can already be misleading, as the audience may not realize that the article is intended to be an opinion one, and will take everything as fact. The article itself, while it is clearly an opinion article, sometimes goes too far with its descriptions and explanations of the situation at hand. While the comment the President made is abhorrent, the article begins to detail how this is only a "part" of the downfall of our democracy. These are hypothetical scenarios that should not be treated in the same way as a fully factual article is, as none of these situations have actually happened. The article ends with the quote "“Quiet, piggy” is just the latest terrible example. And if we stay quiet, the one thing we know is it won’t be the last", which leaves the audience with a sense of alarm. This is persuasive writing and done on purpose by the author to be seen as such, which could veer into misinformant territory.

The CNN article examines President Trump's accusation that several Democratic lawmakers committed "sedition"by releasing a video urging military personnel not to follow "unlawful orders." CNN emphasizes that the lawmakers repeatedly referred only to illegal commands, citing UCMJ rules requiring troops to refuse manifestly unlawful orders. the piece argues that Trump's interprertation-that Democrats told troops to defy lawful orders- is factually incorrect and misrepresent the content of the video. The article relies heavily on past controversies involving Trump to justify Demoncrats concern about illegal orders. However, many of examples CNN cites-such as targeted strikes, National Guard developments, or foreign-policy decisions-occurred within existing legal debate rather than clear violations. By presenting these actions as near-certain evidence of illegality, CNN's framing downplays the legal justifications that existed at the time, exaggerates the implication that President Trump routinely seeks unlawful actions, and reinforces a narrative the supports one political perspective over a more balance legal interpretaition. While the article offers useful legal context about unlawful orders under UCMJ, it clearly blends factual information with interpretive framing. Its selection of historical examples, emphasis on President Trump' s most extreme rhetoric, and minimal exploration of political motives behind the Democrats' video contribute to a non-neutral narrative structure. The article remains informative but ultimately reflects CNN's editorial leanings , presenting one side as legally grounded and the other as reckless, despite the existence of legitimate legal debate surrounding several of the claims.