Previous Troubling Reports

This article uses very biased language to describe clashes between immigration enforcement officers and counter-protestors that have been prevalent over the past month in Portland, OR. The opening describes the council as “progressive‑leaning” and the protesters as “radical agitators,” which immediately positions one side as ideologically driven and the other as violent without nuance.

This article describes the recent comments made by Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard on a Fox News interview. Gabbard accused Barack Obama and his administration of launching a coup against Donald Trump in regards to election fraud and Russian interference in the 2016 election. Some Republicans have viewed this as breaking news, while some Democrats aren’t taking the claims too seriously and believe it to be a distraction. Although there seems to be mixed reactions on Gabbard’s statement, the media should be objective and impartial when reporting on news like this. This article strongly asserts that Tulsi Gabbard is fabricating the scandal to cover up the fact that Donald Trump actually received help from Russia during the 2016 election. The author also calls Tulsi Gabbard the “Russian-sympathetic” and “Putin-friendly” Director of National Intelligence. I feel like this reads as a strong opinion piece, but it is categorized as the latest news. This is why I think this article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

When Mr. Black posted a fake story claiming that Guinness World Records had recognized Cwmbran for having the most roundabouts per square kilometer, this April Fools' Prank was presented as real news by Google's AI. While there are other ethical concerns surrounding why this was posted in the first place, what is more concerning is the inability of Google's AI to filter out fake news and spread it when filtered incorrectly. Mr. Black decided not to post another April Fools story after this predicament.

This article describes President Trump’s decision to delay enforcement of an air travel accommodations rule. While Joe Biden was still in office, the Department of Transportation (DOT) published a final rule in the Federal Register that ensured airport accommodations for travelers using wheelchairs. It prohibited the discrimination against those with disabilities and required annual training for airline staff. After Donald Trump took over as President, he delayed the enforcement of this rule to ensure that it was consistent with the law. Soon after, multiple airlines filed a lawsuit to shut down the rule, claiming that the DOT didn’t have the legal authority to issue it. While this article is pretty informative and detailed about the issue, the strong opinions and loaded language used by the author are very apparent. For example, the author refers to Donald Trump throughout the piece as “the squatter currently occupying the White House.” In addition, the author argues that “this is all about exacting petty revenge by undoing everything that the Biden Administration did” and “the squatter [Trump] and his bunch don’t give the slightest bit of a damn about the safety and dignity of people with disabilities.” This is why I think this article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

While most of the content of this article appears to be true, it does mislead the reader by failing to mention that the victim of the shooting was off-duty and that there was no connection between his work as a CBP officer and the attempted robbery.

The title of this article is misleading. It suggests that Jeffrey Epstein helped boost Donald Trump's ratings while he was alive. In reality, the article only discusses a tweet from Trump in which he claims to have exposed the "Radical Left Democrats'" Epstein hoax. Additionally, the article is filled with strongly biased, anti-Trump language. For example, it calls him things like a "sleazebag" or says he's having a "mental breakdown." This obvious left-leaning bias may undermine the credibility of the article's arguments, even if its points are valid.

This article frames Democrats as "attempting to bash Trump," instead of showing the situation as a policy discussion. The article also emphasizes Trumps's successes by showing egg drop prices, while minimizing context about overall year-over-year increases. Opposing viewpoints are also minimized and presented with language like "doubled down" and "shot back," while Republican responses are described neutrally.

The article uses biased and misleading language by presenting Trump’s policy as a clear improvement without showing alternative perspectives. It only includes quotes from Trump officials and supporters, which causes the piece to feel one-sided. Phrases like “strengthens religious accommodations” and emotional appeals about choosing between faith and work influence the reader to see the policy as unquestionably good. By referencing alleged Biden “crackdowns” without evidence, the article creates a contrast that favors Trump. Leaving out any legal concerns or impacts on other groups makes it harder for readers to fully understand the issue. This kind of framing causes the article to push a political narrative rather than report neutrally.

The article uses biased and misleading language by presenting Trump’s policy as a clear improvement without showing alternative perspectives. It only includes quotes from Trump officials and supporters, which causes the piece to feel one-sided. Phrases like “strengthens religious accommodations” and emotional appeals about choosing between faith and work influence the reader to see the policy as unquestionably good. By referencing alleged Biden “crackdowns” without evidence, the article creates a contrast that favors Trump. Leaving out any legal concerns or impacts on other groups makes it harder for readers to fully understand the issue. This kind of framing causes the article to push a political narrative rather than report neutrally.

While true, this article shares this information in an unnecessary way. It shares how President Trump "likes to boast" and how he likes to "make up stories filled with dramatic but fictional details." While these are not necessarily false, they still offer a sense of bias. Instead of sharing the true information objectively, the article seems to place more of an attack on the President.