Previous Troubling Reports

The use of "quietly" makes it seem like a conspiracy and a shameful thing to be hidden, but given the fact they have the information, it is public, as opposed to the murky web of super PACs that dark money can quietly be funneled through. The article proceeds to fear monger and push biased points when all that really happened is a civil society interest group made a public donation in furtherance of their interest, as is their want to do.

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The title does not reflect the contents of the article, instead opting for sensational appeal as clickbait and misinformation for headline-scanners. It does not share any such thing as "America's big Iran secret," and the words "stunned" and "frantically" frame the interview between the two figures in emotion-based language that is not supported in the article.

In this article, it is stated that Trump dismissed what Tulsi, the Director of National Security, said back in March, that intelligence showed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Trump has now refuted this, seemingly to justify his support for Israel’s attack on Iran. Whether or not Iran was engaging in anything suspicious, it wasn’t detected under Tulsi’s watch. But there will be no civil war within the Trump administration; everyone is quick to fall in line. Tulsi will, too, backpedal and align with the administration’s support for Israel. Then, annoyingly, the article brings in opinions from Tucker Carlson and how Trump disagrees with him. Can’t a reporter leave out a once-good journalist who’s become so obsessed with the sound of his own voice that everything he says should now be taken with a grain of salt? Like, why is that even attached in the story?

I’m of the mind that if the headline is misinformative, even if the body of the article more fairly represents the issue, the work should be considered misinformation. We live in an era of pretty much exclusively headline-scanning, and news outlets know this. This headline is written to HEAVILY imply that every single woman/40+ year-old in the general American workforce could be fired. This is not at all the case. This article is about at-will employment within the Trump administration. Additionally, from the evidence provided in the article, the lawyer does not seem to be definitively stating that Trump can do so. The lawyer recognizes that this is a possibility to consider, and concedes that there may be issues of constitutional violation. While this is definitely what the lawyer is implying, there’s not really a strong, concrete stance, it seems. The clickbait-y headline just doesn’t line up.

This article describes the protests that broke out on June 6th in LA over the Trump administration's immigration policies. It included images of protestors burning the American flag, looting stores, vandalizing buildings, etc. It also included direct quotes from President Trump and from the Department of Homeland Security Assistant Secretary who supports these immigration policies. This article focused entirely on highlighting the violence seen in LA. It didn't include any images of peaceful protestors and only inserted quotes from conservative politicians/public officials. I feel as though the author left out key points and other perspectives, which skews the presentation of the information. This is why I think the news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article portrays Israel as unequivocally stronger than Iran, but another source from 2024 states that Iran's military personnel exceeds Israel, and Iran bolsters a larger and more diverse missile array compared to Israel. The article fails to properly demonstrate the technological advancements that Israel has over Iran and emphasizes espionage as the largest factor in Israel's "dominance," despite Iran bolstering more paramilitary forces near Israel compared to Israel's forces near Iran. The article also includes many biased and aggressive language, suggesting a bias towards Israel.

Firstly, Iran and Israel have only remained dormant in attacking one another; nothing was truly resolved from the first round. Trump is certainly not a peacemaker; he’s now realizing that diplomacy is far more difficult in action than in words. His missteps with the Ukraine-Russia war have shown that, no matter which side you take, autocratic leaders don’t play by civil or diplomatic rules. The same applies to Israel and Iran. This is an opportunity Israel won’t pass up, they’re trying to kill two birds with one stone, so to speak. I would argue that Trump quietly supports Israel’s actions behind closed doors, but he knows how to manipulate the media and will only remain publicly neutral for so long. And frankly, who cares? The nations involved are far beyond listening to the current U.S. administration. To much of the world, America is seen as all talk and no action when it comes to actually stopping wars.

Other than the wealth of very inflammatory language, the article connects Microsoft to the actions of the IDF. Their main source of proof is Microsoft employing former IDF members and buying Israeli tech companies, but this does not necessarily imply that Microsoft is complicit in Israeli war crimes. The article then blows the accusations out of proportion by accusing Microsoft of supplying nearly all of Israel's technology, including facial recognition technology. In general, the article uses emotionally charged language and ignores Microsoft’s public denials and lack of direct evidence linking its products to specific harm, ultimately failing to provide a logical or factual basis for its accusations.

This article blows the protests in LA out of proportion and fails to highlight all of the peaceful protests that also occurred. It is full off loaded language like saying, "rioters, who are ravaging the streets," where the source for this is another Fox News article. It blames protesters for the delays, and fails to mention anything else that may have caused them.

The article opens by admitting the key academic was "relatively unknown" until this year. It then talks of how the UK and parts of Europe are in a "“pre-civil war” state" without giving any metrics or reasonings. This is followed by lots of fear mongering and vague claims with no support or reasoning offered.