Why Troubling News:

This is one of several articles written by NBC regarding the Epstein files release. It is troubling because it has a clear liberal bias. The article highlights the democratic bias surrounding what information has been covered up or withheld during the release. This makes the article partisan and one-sided, lessening its reliability.

Why Troubling News:

This source is troubling largely due to reliability issues and also some unsubstantiated claims. The New York Post is identified as a biased source by Biasly, but the reliability rating of the overall media source doesn't appear to align with the reliability of this article. By no means do I intend to contradict that Candace Owens explores some baseless conspiracies, but this article cites sources that make claims about her without providing evidence. Further research into some of these claims proves that the author may have explicit insincere intentions. For example, the article claims Owens threw her car keys at someone, demanding that they re-park her car while working at Turning Point USA, but research proves she never drove a car to her job at TPUSA. Unsubstantiated claims like this are clearly damaging and intended to harm Owens' character. Regardless of people's opinions about the controversial internet personality, no one deserves to be falsely accused in articles by major media outlets. Basic research can prove some of the author's claims are untrue, while others are completely uncited when they include that "a source" made a claim.

Why Troubling News:

This article is troubling because the author is insinuating that the 2020 Election was stolen and that the USPS Board helped do it. The article claims that President Trump must appoint a Republican to the board to balance out opinions. Not all appoints are appointed by the president, which helps eliminate some bias, and not all members of the current boards are Democrats. Additionally, some of the links provided in the article do not work, which limits the articles crediblity.

Why Troubling News:

This is troubling news because of the clear left-leaning bias against Donald Trump and his immigration policies. Because of its obvious bias, this makes it troubling news.

Why Troubling News:

No surprise from the Federalist, but this article shows clear bias and doesn't accurately represent the whole story. Charlie Kirk's life undoubtedly contained impressive and impactful elements, regardless of one's opinion on his political beliefs, such as his grassroots organization and the significant impression he has made on conservative youth. With this in mind, the article is troubling because it only focuses on the positive aspects without commenting on the controversial or inflammatory elements of Kirk's life and career. There was a large mix of emotions in the country following his assassination, some expressing joy about his public murder. I believe it is sick to celebrate the execution of a man for his political beliefs, but this article ignores the fact that many Americans did not mourn his death, as demonstrated by social media following the assassination. The article is one-sided and points to Kirk's achievements as to why he deserved the Person of the Year award from TIME magazine, without considering why TIME would not choose Charlie Kirk. Additionally, it provokes the population that understands Kirk was sometimes inflammatory, and his assassination doesn't necessarily mean he should be revered or martyred. Also important to consider is the hill that this author is fighting for, Person of the Year on TIME magazine, which was awarded to Adolf Hitler in 1938. The insignificance of the award and the clear bias from the author demonstrate an intentionally provocative article containing myriad instances of selection and omission bias.

Why Troubling News:

This is troubling news for me because of the amount of the author's own opinion added into the article. This article is not labeled as an opinion article, yet the author opines on the data that he presents. The article does use credible sources of data and direct quotes from Trump supporters, but the reliability of this information is debatable because of the addition of the author's own bias. The author uses phrases such as "has no idea what the average American buys" and "made things meaningfully worse for people", which may leave the audience with a skewed perspective of the situation.

Why Troubling News:

This article is troubling news because it relies heavily on highly charged language and emotionally provocative framing to convey their perspective--beginning with the sensationalized headline. The headline immediately sets a sensational tone by quoting Trump calling Green a "traitor", which from the start primes readers to anticipate conflict rather than balanced reporting. This article is full of negative wording, insults, personal attacks, and internal/external party hostility. Some examples of inflammatory quotes from the text include "low IQ traitor", "washed up", and "battered wife". Overall, the consistent emphasis on conflict and political chaos over substance has the potential to distort public understanding of this event and amplify division.

Why Troubling News:

This article is very liberal and shows many instances of bias. One of the ways that the author frames the issue is that they predict the Supreme Court's outcome as certain, stating, "The Trump administration will win." This is not neutral reporting, but an assertion of the outcome before the court has ruled. The article also frames the court as partisan and aligned with Trump and his ideals, stating, "Republican-appointed justices' questions... seemed to confirm it." The author also employs emotionally charged language by using words like "dried husk" to quote someone with a more dramatic flair. Overall, the news article does not directly convey any false information, but its use of language contributes to framing bias, tone bias, and confirmation bias.

Why Troubling News:

The article is heavily biased and carries loaded and framing-heavy language. Some examples of this language include "republican-controlled Supreme Court," "the court's latest opportunity to empower the republican president," and more. The author has implied motives such as aligning the Supreme Court with the Trump administration and the right-wing agenda of The Heritage Foundation's Project 2025. Although the article doesn't share any false news, its framing bias and tone bias skew what the reader may think of this issue.

Why Troubling News:

This article is troubling news because of many reasons, including the charged headline. The title, "Supreme Court seems ready to let Trump fire independent commissioners" implies a definitive outcome that the Court has not actually reached. The phrasing of the title suggests certainty and immediacy, both of which can sensationalize the situation before readers can actually understand the legalities of what is happening. Additionally, the article was very selective with the comments it chose to feature, only highlighting statements that reinforce the author's narrative, further creating the impression of a predetermined ruling rather than presenting a balanced overview of the situation.