Previous Troubling Reports

This article describes the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, along with Donald Trump and the United States’ possible intervention. Throughout the article, the author claimed that the Trump administration has credibility problems. He included multiple quotes from Donald Trump himself and from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The quotes were compared to eventually find contradictory information about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. While the article uses multiple sources and different quotes to boost its reliability and credibility, it does insert some inherent bias on behalf of the author about Donald Trump in general. The author states, “Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says,” and “Trump often seems to say whatever’s politically expedient at a given point in time.” The author also heavily pointed to Trump manipulating intelligence to purposely lie to the American people. Some of these comments were a little unnecessary in telling a truly unbiased/neutral story. When a journalist lets their own opinions bleed into their writing, the presentation of the information is skewed. This is why I think this CNN news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article describes the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, along with Donald Trump and the United States’ possible intervention. Throughout the article, the author claimed that the Trump administration has credibility problems. He included multiple quotes from Donald Trump himself and from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The quotes were compared to eventually find contradictory information about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. While the article uses multiple sources and different quotes to boost its reliability and credibility, it does insert some inherent bias on behalf of the author about Donald Trump in general. The author states, “Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says,” and “Trump often seems to say whatever’s politically expedient at a given point in time.” The author also heavily pointed to Trump manipulating intelligence to purposely lie to the American people. Some of these comments were a little unnecessary in telling a truly unbiased/neutral story. When a journalist lets their own opinions bleed into their writing, the presentation of the information is skewed. This is why I think this CNN news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

In this article, the author discusses President Trump's recent decision about U.S. involvement with Iran and Israel. The article described "frustrating" discussions and mentions of President Trump growing wary. While these could easily both be true, there were no citations or quotes to back this up, making it difficult to easily deem as true.

This article focuses on Karoline Leavitt's statements about Trump on the conflict between Iran and Israel, and we know that she is not a trustworthy source from the get-go. I find it interesting that Axios seems to maintain that Trump is still deciding on whether to take action, but doesn't mention the ongoing weapons supply the US is sending to Israel.

This article is slightly misleading as it seems to group protesters and rioters and does not seem to state any opinions from the opposing viewpoint.

This article is slightly misleading as it seems to group protesters and rioters and does not seem to state any opinions from the opposing viewpoint.

The article shows a clear pro-Trump bias. It focuses on a single poll from Rasmussen showing his approval at 50%, but most major polls actually have him lower, usually in the mid-40s. The piece doesn't mention that other surveys show most Americans think the country is on the wrong track, which paints a very different picture. Instead of offering balanced info or showing a range of polling data, it just highlights the one result that makes Trump look good. The tone of the article is also really upbeat and one-sided, almost like it's promoting him instead of reporting the facts. Overall, it feels more like a cheerleading piece than objective news.

This article skewes polling results, even though they are presented in an image within the article. The first misrepresentation comes from the journalist referring to the metrics of Democrats and republicans by those who voted for either Trump or Harris, even though that was not a part of the poll. Second, the article informs readers that 71% of Harris voters are against engaging in the Iran-Israel conflict, whereas the actual statistic is 65% of Democrats.

The use of "quietly" makes it seem like a conspiracy and a shameful thing to be hidden, but given the fact they have the information, it is public, as opposed to the murky web of super PACs that dark money can quietly be funneled through. The article proceeds to fear monger and push biased points when all that really happened is a civil society interest group made a public donation in furtherance of their interest, as is their want to do.

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The title does not reflect the contents of the article, instead opting for sensational appeal as clickbait and misinformation for headline-scanners. It does not share any such thing as "America's big Iran secret," and the words "stunned" and "frantically" frame the interview between the two figures in emotion-based language that is not supported in the article.