This article does not have deliberate misinformation, per-say, but its framing, selective focus, and use of language can lead readers to form biased or incomplete conclusions. For example, while the article accurately describes the nominees’ professional backgrounds and associations with media and entertainment as well as the specific controversies that nominees were entangled in, the heavy focus on nominees’ media backgrounds without equally addressing their professional credentials may present an incomplete picture, potentially misleading readers about their qualifications. Furthermore, the article emphasizes controversies and perceived weaknesses but does not fully explore or contextualize the nominees' policy perspectives, previous achievements, or professional credentials. This imbalance could mislead by omission, leaving out key information that might present a more nuanced view. Finally, phrases like “made-for-TV Cabinet” or references to physical attributes (e.g., “great physique and hair”) might be perceived as diminishing the seriousness of the appointments. While not misinformation, this rhetorical approach could influence reader perception without directly misrepresenting facts.