Previous Troubling Reports

This article is troubling because it describes the recent actions of this administration as "Orwellian," or dystopian. This action refers to Trump's executive order to remove certain information from the Smithsonian Institution. This now-removed information does detail Trump's record of impeachments, so it does benefit him. However, it seems far-reaching to describe this as Orwellian since the Smithsonian is not the only place to have this information on his impeachment. Plus, the Smithsonian has mentioned that there will still be an exhibit describing the President's impeachments. Furthermore, the article seems incredibly biased when saying that, "Trump has always been rather blatant about his efforts to rewrite history with self-serving falsehoods and rather shameless in applying pressure on the people." Overall, the language used in the article does not intend to inform the public neutrally but instead intends to bash President Trump.

Immediately, the title indicates some expediency bias. The patronizing question and instant connection established between Trump and Epstein almost certainly serves as clickbait. The rest of the article is not much better. The author writes that "Donald Trump is abusing [Giuffre’s] memory,” and that she is “hoping this "sick episode will cause even more pain for Trump, and sometime soon.” While this article contains numerous direct quotes and some facts have been corroborated, the framing of the Epstein files controversy reveals the journalist’s personal, highly negative view of Trump. This article is an excellent example of a brazenly biased news article. The problem with that is this: it’s not really a “news article.” In reality, it functions more like an opinion piece. But, it is not labelled as an opinion piece. It’s in The Nation’s ‘Politics’ section, like any other political article. Disguising a targeted attack of Trump and his connection to a sex-trafficker (how well-founded these claims are, we have yet to see) as regular news is highly misleading.

Although the sources and information linked in this article may not necessarily be misinformation, the title of the article still comes off as click-bait.

Although the sources and information linked in this article may not necessarily be misinformation, the title of the article still comes off as click-bait.

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.