Previous Troubling Reports

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

This article claims that Trump's cuts to the NWS played a part in the poor forecasts leading up to the flash floods in Texas. Other reports tell us that warnings were sent out before the event occurred, and that the NWS did what it was supposed to do during the crisis. While initial rain forecasts underestimated rainfall amounts, this cannot be directly tied to cuts to the NWS, since weather forecasts are naturally difficult to get right.

The article quotes Trump saying that the reason Democrats didn't vote for the Big Beautiful Bill is because of their “hatred” for the U.S. or for Trump. The article does not cite any other reasons and only portrays the bill in a positive light, without presenting any criticism or opposing viewpoints. The article also cites Trump saying the bill is "the most popular bill ever signed in the history of our country." The article does not present any information that the bill is actually widely unpopular among American people, as poll after poll has found.

This could be troubling because it presents quotes from President Trump, then adds its own interpretations on to these quotes. The article uses "falsely" and "accused" as statements from President Trump but does not provide enough substantiation behind those rebuttals and portrays the information in a negative, seemingly biased, way.

This article presents a lot of claims that are "the truth, but not the full truth." The article states that the school district issued an apology, but did not elaborate on what the apology consisted of. In particular, the school district explained that AIDS Vancouver Island believed they were bringing materials appropriate for older youth to help young people make informed safety decisions (https://cheknews.ca/nanaimo-mom-upset-with-drug-use-info-cards-distributed-at-school-event-1262536/). This information was left out of the original article, which only stated the following: "you’re literally handing out materials that describe in great detail how to do drugs to elementary school children." The article also misrepresents the relationship between decriminalization and drug deaths. The article attributes the high number of 2023 drug deaths to decriminalization, failing to mention confounding factors. For example, the BC Coroners Service explicitly stated that illegal fentanyl contamination was driving the crisis, not decriminalization (https://news.gov.bc.ca/releases/2024PSSG0001-000069). Moreover, the article deliberately emphasizes the LGBT connection by prominently featuring that this was a "pro-LGBT event" organized by "Gay Straight Alliance clubs" in the headline and opening paragraphs. However, the actual issue was an oversight by AIDS Vancouver Island regarding age-appropriate materials. The attempt to attribute blame to an LGBTQ organization demonstrates a degree of polarization and bias that may influence the article's credibility.

While I appreciate the notice provided that this article is sponsored, I overall find corporations writing opinion/persuasive pieces on politics, especially foreign politics, very troubling. This article, in particular, is so flagrantly trying to curry support in favor of a foreign diplomatic stance that benefits the company sponsoring the piece. They don’t try to hide it (which maybe is better, but still weird), even explicitly mentioning that the company has had a rocky relationship with the Ghanaian government. It all feels off and even shady, but could reasonably be dismissed since there is a notification of sponsorship. But, my general personal distaste for corporate-sponsored pieces aside, the fact that this article is not listed as an op-ed is strange. At least on my end, it is only marked as “politics,” not even “opinion.” Also, the framing of the self-serving body of the article as “U.S. Interests” in the headline is subtly tricky. Altogether, I am put off by this article.