Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The Politicl article presents itself as an explanatory report on Trump's tariffs, but its structural framing reveals a clear directional bias. Its headline eastablish an anxiety-driven narrative before evidence is introduced, priming readers to expect economic harm. The article then sequences information to reinforce this predetermined conclusion; it opens with economists' warning, moves into corporate claims that price increases inevitable, and concludes with predicted political damage to Republicans. Notably absent are countervailing perspectives, such as sectors benefiting from tariffs, reshoring effects, or alternative macroeconomic interpretations. This selective structuring does not fabricate facts, but it constructs a false sense of inveitability by presneting only the portion of economic reality that supports a derteriorating outlook. Language choices further amplify the article's negative framing through emotionally suggestive terminology rather than neutral economic vocabulary. Terms, such as "hangover" and "only so long" serve as affective cues that imply instability, crisis, or impending collapse. These metaphors shape a reader's emotional response independently of empircal data to guide interpretation toward the harshest reading of tariff impacts. While the article avoid massively overt partisan language, its tonal shaping functions as a linguistic form of bias, which packages economoc prediction in a rhetoric of anxiety. Even when presenting factual corporate statements, the article frame them through metaphors of unsustainability, reinforcing the sense of impending economic deterioration. Meanwhile, this article has the tendency strongly against trariff and the administration through selective sourcing and omission. Nearly every quoted vioce represents groups negatively affected by tariffs.The absence of perspectives from other industrial fields, trade straregists, which creates a one-directional narrative that harm is universal and policy failure is assumed.

This is troubling news because the article uses charged language to amplify the emotional impact of Trump's statements and frame them in a way that may exaggerate his intent. By highlighting President Trump's most dramatic phrasing from some of his most recent statements and then primarily focusing on the strongest negative reactions to it, the article sensationalizes the situation rather than presenting it in a balanced, straightforward way.

Trump wanted to fire a member of the FTC, but that decision was contested by the fact that there is a law enacted by Congress to insulate the agency from political pressures. So the case went to the Supreme Court as the Trump administration is arguing that the president has the authority to make those type of decisions. We will have to wait and see what the court decides to fact check the administrations claims.