Previous Troubling Reports

The title is misleading/clickbait and only relies on a content creator as the source of the article rather than verified experts.

Joe wasn’t defending Kanye West’s song, he was defending freedom of speech. If you listen to the full segment, Joe points out the irony: Kanye rants against Jewish people, yet likely still buys diamond-encrusted jewelry from them. In America, we have the First Amendment, and defining hate speech is complicated. Joe wasn’t promoting the song; he understands that when something is banned, public curiosity increases. By allowing Kanye to broadcast his music, people can judge for themselves just how vile and disturbing it really is.

Joe wasn’t defending Kanye West’s song, he was defending freedom of speech. If you listen to the full segment, Joe points out the irony: Kanye rants against Jewish people, yet likely still buys diamond-encrusted jewelry from them. In America, we have the First Amendment, and defining hate speech is complicated. Joe wasn’t promoting the song; he understands that when something is banned, public curiosity increases. By allowing Kanye to broadcast his music, people can judge for themselves just how vile and disturbing it really is.

The use of "toxic" is misleading and troubling; sex trafficking and RICO charges as faced by Diddy are not "toxic," they are Federal felonies that carry a potential life sentence. Chris Brown being accused of committing "grievous bodily harm" is not toxic, it is GRIEVOUS BODILY HARM. The use of toxic in the headline in the cheapens and lessens the severity of the actions of the offenders. The point of the article is to talk about and criticize the pervasive culture of misogyny and exception for male celebrities, but by calling their actions "toxic" they are adding to the culture they wish to harm, as they are minimizing the actions they want to criticize, particularly since people mostly read headlines. Further, using a less serious word opens the door more for the defenses of these celebrities, since "toxic" is much more personal and culture-war esque language which can be objected to easier than "sex trafficker" and the like.

The title is clickbait and pushes viewers to assume this conspiracy. The article doesn't have any sources coming from reliable experts and relies on quotes from the Bible.

The title of this article can be misleading as the suspect was actually believed to have anti-natalist beliefs rather than anti pro-life beliefs.

The title of this article can be misleading as the suspect was actually believed to have anti-natalist beliefs rather than anti pro-life beliefs.

The title and message of the news are highly misleading. Dr. Philip Dormitzer never said that the release of the COVID-19 vaccine was delayed to influence the election. The article's main source of proof includes a quote from Dr. Dormiter, saying, "Let’s just say it wasn’t a coincidence, the timing of the vaccine”. Extracting "COVID Vax Results Were Deliberately Delayed To Influence Election" from this quote is certainly a far stretch. The Infowars article also fails to mention a separate quote from Dormitzer, who stated, "My Pfizer colleagues and I did everything we could to get the FDA's Emergency Use Authorization at the very first possible moment. Any other interpretation of my comments about the pace of the vaccine's development would be incorrect" (https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/boards-policy-regulation/us-house-panel-seeks-information-pfizer-over-alleged-covid-vaccine-delay-2025-05-15/). Given the article's high degree of extrapolation, while also leaving out significant forms of counter evidence, this news is troubling and misleading.

This article publishes the opinion of a protester who claims that protests against abortion will be cracked down on outside of the range of the ban, when there is no evidence to suggest that this will be the case. This section, along with other parts and the general tone of the article, seeks to fearmonger about future directions that policy could take, preventing a nuanced discussion on the current state of policy.

This article publishes the opinion of a protester who claims that protests against abortion will be cracked down on outside of the range of the ban, when there is no evidence to suggest that this will be the case. This section, along with other parts and the general tone of the article, seeks to fearmonger about future directions that policy could take, preventing a nuanced discussion on the current state of policy.

The title alone is misleading and clearly manufactured to gain traction rather than spread information. "Media that protected Biden" is very bias with little to no factual backing. The article refers to the justice system as "Biden's Justice Department" and accused them of hiding evidence that would make Biden look bad during the election. The author also claims that the white house knew Biden was mentally declining, but lied about it, even though there is little evidence of this. This article clearly sets up a liberals vs Trump narrative to stir up readers instead of just informing them of the situation without bias.

This article has an immense amount of Republican bias, and goes down a list of misunderstandings, including misrepresenting scientific research on hormones as "making mice transgender" which sensationalized and politicizes medical research and experimentation.