Previous Troubling Reports

This article could be troubling because it uses seemingly accusatory language. It says the Trump administration "fanned conspiracy theories and sparked a resurgence of accusations." However, it did not give evidence to back this up. It also mentioned President Trump "lashed out" at reporters. This could easily be true, but the only evidence they gave of this was Trump's question of "Are you still talking about Jeffrey Epstein?”

This article uses emotionally charge language, like "Newsom has been obsessed with attacking Trump" and "Newsom has been on the warpath." This article clearly frames Newson in a negative light saying things like "Newsom also lost — badly — in his bid to stop President Trump from deploying the National Guard." While it portrays Trump in a very positive light. It is also more focused on how Newsom has been attacking Trump, rather than reasons why he has not received funding.

This article describes the interaction between President Donald Trump and Bloomberg reporter Annmarie Hordern while onboard Air Force One. Hordern asked Trump questions about the economic impact of his tariffs to which responded “I think your question is stupid.” While this interview is not the most pleasant one, this article definitely portrays Trump in an extremely negative light due to the author’s choice of words. For example, the author states, “Trump used his now familiar tactic of asking: ‘Who are you with?’ ― to sidestep the question.” The author also decided to use loaded verb phrases like “Trump fired back” and “Trump snapped at a reporter.” The headline itself is a clear example of how wording and framing affects impartiality. While the quotes and information itself are accurate, the way in which it was presented was very skewed. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article is misleading beginning with the title. In my opinion I believe the title of this article is unprofessional utilizing the word "beef". The rest of the article appears to be misleading and biased in it's focus and framing, primarily presenting the Republican perspective on Elon Musk's potential new political party and its impact. The article repeatedly highlights highlights how Musk's party could "cost Republicans unified control", "peel off more Republican than Democratic voters", etc. This constant emphasis on the negative aspects for one specific party contributes to biased framing.

This article is misleading as it subtly hints at the reason California hasnt received aid for the fires in January is due to Newsome focusing on "Trump" despite having requested federal aid but not receiving it.

This article uses inflammatory language towards immigrants in an effort to further divide people on the topic. The title is also clickbait, Bass did not use the word illegals to describe the population of migrants in LA. The article tries to blame the overspending in the US budget on providing healthcare(which many would consider an essential right) to immigrants, but fails to mention other hot-button issues of overspending like defense, as well as the recent medicaid cuts to millions of American citizens by the Trump administration. Overall, this storys purpose serves to spark more debate and hate rather than educate or correctly portray what politicians like Karen Bass actually spoke about.

This article shows clear bias and spreads misinformation through emotionally charged language and one-sided reporting. It labels Mayor Karen Bass a “radical Democrat” and dismisses her concerns as “moaning,” while repeatedly using the dehumanizing term “illegals” instead of “undocumented immigrants.” It misrepresents the issue by ignoring the legal requirement for hospitals to treat all emergency patients and leaves out the fact that many undocumented immigrants pay taxes without full benefits. The article also cites large, unverified cost figures without credible sources or context, making them misleading. By only including anti-immigration voices and omitting public health or expert perspectives, it lacks balance and promotes fear rather than facts.

This article shows clear bias and spreads misinformation through emotionally charged language and one-sided reporting. It labels Mayor Karen Bass a “radical Democrat” and dismisses her concerns as “moaning,” while repeatedly using the dehumanizing term “illegals” instead of “undocumented immigrants.” It misrepresents the issue by ignoring the legal requirement for hospitals to treat all emergency patients and leaves out the fact that many undocumented immigrants pay taxes without full benefits. The article also cites large, unverified cost figures without credible sources or context, making them misleading. By only including anti-immigration voices and omitting public health or expert perspectives, it lacks balance and promotes fear rather than facts.

Speculates based on social media posts that traffic is clear in LA because of mass deportations, although other sources (such as https://www.hindustantimes.com/trending/traffic-on-busiest-la-highway-vanishes-amid-ice-raids-wild-x-video-claims-101752110711906.html, which notably is also only going off of spcial media posts and should not be fully trusted either) note that there are voices doubting the veracity of the poster's statements, even doubting that the road depicted in posted video is the one the poster says it is. The Infowars article is standing beside a claim without duly verifying that it is factual, contributing to potential misinformation as the original post takes potentially doctored information and attributes political meaning to it.

This article/news report is completely baseless. Alex Jones does not cite where any of his sources are from and claims that the entire US government has been raping children. The article is a singular sentence long and provides truly no context, support, or evidence for any of the claims made.

This CNN article describes the Jeffrey Epstein case including his crimes, those potentially involved, and his subsequent death. The article places a lot of criticism on US Attorney General Pam Bondi and the way she handled the case. CNN showcased Pam Bondi’s contradictions in her statements about the number of victims, videos of Epstein, and the existence of a “client list.” Overall, I feel like this article is pretty one-sided, as the majority of quotes used were condemning Bondi and Trump. For example, X comments from Laura Loomer were added saying that Bondi should be fired. X comments from Elon Musk were also used saying that the real reason officials haven’t made more Epstein files public is because Trump’s name is in them. While reading the article, it didn’t seem like there were multiple perspectives fairly shown, only one very critical view on Pam Bondi and Trump. In addition, the author used fairly strong language to criticize Pam Bondi and Donald Trump, calling it a “botched handling of the Epstein files” and saying that “the Trump administration has itself to blame.” This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

Within this article there are many instances of framing and one sided language by the author, yet the article does include a good amount factual information. For instance, "Trump has delayed his monster tariffs." Using the word "monster" is a strong, negative adjective while it could be interpreted as describing the scale or impact of the tariffs, it also contains a clear negative connotation. This article also lacks any counter arguments and focuses heavily on the threat of tariffs and the delay of deadlines, and impact on American consumers. While these are all valid points, the author does not explore the statements from the Trump administration, it does not dive into the potential positive outcomes that the tariffs might argue for.