Previous Troubling Reports

This write-up of a Hill interview with Peter Navarro centers only on his view, as he goes on to bash the recent job statistics in support of President Trump. The article does not do independent fact-checking against Navarro's statements or provide opinions from the other side of the aisle.

This article heavily focuses on how the Democrats have had to retreat and emphasizes their failures, while presenting Republican criticism as legitimate and effective without examining counterarguments. Opposing viewpoints are minimally represented except for critical quotes about their failures, while Republican viewpoints attacking the Green New deal are presented without challenge or context.

Some U.S Media outlets reported on a new climate change report from the Trump-era Department of Energy like it was legit science, but it turns out the report wasn't peer-reviews but written by many climate change deniers and they also ignored well known data. This article pushed out old and debunked claims to downplay human caused climate change. This issue can mislead people into thinking climate change isn't a big deal and it may also influence policy ad slow down important environment action.

The article is centered around Harris's interview and her personal opinions and reflections on the political system and recent events that have happened. While it is her interview, the author does not bother to balance her criticisms with counterarguments giving readers a full understanding and both sides of the aisle. Harris refers to the cuts of Medicaid by President Trump and criticizes it, reinforcing negative portrayal of his administrations policies. Harris's use of 'capitulation' by those 'guarding democracy' and her assertion that the system is 'broken' are strong, negative statements of the current political environment.

This article brands conjecture as highly logical, inevitable fact. The author takes data about the difference in energy generation between China and the U.S. and looks at the somewhat aggressive statements made by U.S. leadership toward Russia, coming to the conclusion that the government likely wants to provoke nuclear war to have a significant number of American citizens killed off to free up the energy. The author comes to this conclusion without factual scaffolding beyond the initial premises, and additionally mentions using AI for research on certain topics, which is generally thought to be an irresponsible research method since AI does not always present factual information. A couple of lines from the article to provide examples of the claims argued throughout: - "It is abundantly apparent to many of us that both the USA and UK government literally are trying to persuade Russia to nuke western countries, because it solves so many domestic problems with debt, entitlements, strategic resources and more." - "Since the mRNA jabs haven’t yet achieved the desired depopulation milestones, a provoked nuclear war could accelerate the timetable dramatically, all while eliminating a significant portion of human demands on the power grid, freeing up TWh for the coming wave of AI data centers that the U.S. government believes are necessary to compete with China’s current AI dominance."

This article has facts that seem wrong, like the distribution of the COVID-19 vaccines. This article also doesn't link there sources, so there is no way to verify the information.

This article's primary objective seems to defame the Trump administration by framing their request for a list of registered voters as a threat to discredit elections, "or else." Furthermore, the article cites numerous people and organizations without providing a source, making the real context of the information ambiguous.

The article shows clear bias starting with the headline, which frames Democrats as using Trump’s bill purely as a political weapon, implying manipulation rather than genuine concern. Throughout the piece, the language consistently favors Democrats and casts Republicans in a negative light, often suggesting harm or cruelty without exploring alternative interpretations or motivations. The tone positions Democratic strategies as smart or necessary while dismissing Republican positions as damaging, reinforcing one side’s narrative without offering a fair or neutral analysis of the bill’s content or potential benefits.

The accusations this article supports against former president Obama are widely believed to be misleading, and provides no real evidence to its claim.

This article spreads a lot of misinformation and leans heavily into personal attacks rather than facts. It criticizes Harrison Ford for commenting on economic inequality, calling him a hypocrite just because he’s wealthy. The article also throws in a wildly exaggerated claim that the top 1% gained $42 trillion in 2021 alone under Biden, which just isn’t true. That number is taken out of context and doesn’t reflect what actually happened. On top of that, it mocks Ford for not giving all his money away or using Venmo to pay down the national debt, which sounds more like sarcasm than serious commentary. In the end, the piece reads more like a political rant than a thoughtful critique, using biased language and misleading facts to push an agenda rather than inform readers.

The article is clear quite clickbait for one. Delibrately trying to lure readers in with a sensationalized title. After that it presents one archeologist's opinion, who does not appear to be a highly regarded or credible archeologist at all, as fact. They present this as if proof has been found that the city of Atlantis has been factually located. Not only did Atlantis most likely not exist in reality, but if it did it would not be exposed. Finally, the evidence he uses to reach his conclusion is bonkers and makes massive sweeping claims with little evidence even if everything he said was true at face value (it isn't).

Brietbart uses charged and hateful language to undercut immigration organizations that Lin-Manuel Miranda is raising money for with the 10th Hamilton anniversary. The article consistently emphasizes that the organizations aid "illegal" immigrants while neglecting to acknowledge differing stories/opinions based off evidence that many people affected in mass immigration raids were on legal paths to citizenship.