Previous Troubling Reports

This article sheds light on President-elect Donald Trump’s rhetorical style, marked by sweeping promises and ambiguous caveats, raising concerns about the potential for misinformation. For example, Trump’s pledge to quickly reduce grocery prices and abruptly end overseas wars is presented without concrete policy details or actionable plans, leaving these claims open to skepticism. His assertion of an impending "Golden Age of America" similarly lacks substantiation, making it difficult to evaluate its validity. Additionally, statements such as "all hell’s going to break out" if hostages are not returned by his inauguration use dramatic language that amplifies public fears without providing clear strategies or solutions. Furthermore, expert commentary notes Trump’s tendency to reframe unfulfilled promises to maintain his base’s support, illustrating how political speech can evolve to sidestep accountability.

This article, while textually likely only somewhat conservative has a very consevative headline that doesn't quite match up its content. The article is claiming that liberals are cancelling their time magazine subscriptions because trump was named person of the year and provides tweets from users who posted online comments about doing so but there is no indication of a persons political party affiliation in any tweet. In reality, there are many conservatives and republicans that also dislike trump or would perhaps not be in agreement with Trumps new title as person of the year but the article makes no reference or gives no consideration to that.

This article raises concerns about Kash Patel's qualifications and potential impact as FBI Director, should he be confirmed. Some of the claims rely on speculation and loaded language that may lead to misinterpretation or bias. The author highlighting statements from Patel, such as describing the FBI as “an existential threat to our republican form of government,” raise doubts about his ability to lead the agency in a non-partisan and professional manner. Moreover, the article outlines potential risks associated with Patel's leadership, including the weaponization of the FBI to target political opponents, a possibility bolstered by his close alignment with former President Donald Trump’s agenda. Drawing parallels to abuses under J. Edgar Hoover’s tenure, the author notes that while modern internal safeguards, such as the FBI’s Domestic Investigations and Operations Guide (DIOG), provide some protection, they could be undermined by a politically motivated director.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC. What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC. What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC. What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC. What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

The theatrical relationships and drama behind the scenes on Capitol Hill is often spoken about in hyperbolic ways by the media (in my opinion). The House Oversight Committee is seeing a campaign within itself to determine who will be the next ranking Democratic member next year. The article correctly reports that Pelosi is supporting Rep, Gerry Connolly. It's fair to say that a seasoned political veteran such as Pelosi would throw her support behind Connolly, as opposed to a more controversial option such as AOC. What troubles me about pieces like these is the headline is a dramatic interpretation of what the underlying event is. It frames the situation as Pelosi trying to "tank" or sabotage Congresswoman Cortez. When upon reading the article it just appears that Pelosi is making calls and voicing support for her Candidate of choice; which is to be expected and isn't anything out of the ordinary.

This opinion article on Fox News is discussing that Trump will rebuild the US economy and that democrats and Biden deserve none of the credit for that ecnomy when he becomes President again. This article is biased towards Trump and how he has and will handle the economy. The article is also very bias against democrats and the Biden administration along with anything that Biden and democrats tried to do against COVID-19 and the high inflation. Also, the data that showed that Obama had a good economy when he left office which Trump inheritied; however, the article states that the data is not true and Trump's actions made the ecnomy better. While there can be a difference of opinion on what will make and break an economy the obvious distain for democrats though is palpable through the article.

In general, the article does not have egregious misinformation issues, but one section that particularly stood out as problematic was the analysis of a quote from New York BLM leader Hawk Newsome in response to the not-guilty verdict for Daniel Penny. The article responded to Newsome's quote as if it was a fully direct call to violence for the black community, though it in reality is much more likely a rhetorical remark aimed at calling out what he and others believe to be hypocrisy and racism in the justice system. By not acknowledging this alternative perspective and jumping to portray Newsome and his supporters in a violent light, the author is expressing at least a minor form of bias against the BLM movement and their intentions.

In general, the article does not have egregious misinformation issues, but one section that particularly stood out as problematic was the analysis of a quote from New York BLM leader Hawk Newsome in response to the not-guilty verdict for Daniel Penny. The article responded to Newsome's quote as if it was a fully direct call to violence for the black community, though it in reality is much more likely a rhetorical remark aimed at calling out what he and others believe to be hypocrisy and racism in the justice system. By not acknowledging this alternative perspective and jumping to portray Newsome and his supporters in a violent light, the author is expressing at least a minor form of bias against the BLM movement and their intentions.

This article very sadly redirects the focus of the shooting of two kindergarteners to a politicians wording by attributing absent words to adhering to a woke agenda. The author presumes that the shooter targeted the school because it was christian and because he wanted to exact a vendetta against the us for its lack of action in the genocide of palestinians. The author then expresses disdain and accuses Newsom of not sympathizing with the victims because he did not use the same wording as with another victim of guns. The kind of tying loose threads in order to support an idea or simply cause disdain for a politician is quite polarising and very unproductive.