Previous Troubling Reports

This article uses charged language throughout the article, like "the Left's dangerous rhetoric." It also has a very limited amount of opposite sources, but many quotes that justify that position it is attempting to make. This article blames the left for their polarized politics, without considering that the right is equally as polarized and also makes very strong statements against left leaning politicians.

This article describes the recent decision held by the Supreme Court on Friday June 27th over LGBTQ+ books in schools. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court sided with parents who objected LGBTQ-themed books and were seeking the option to remove their children from the classroom for religious reasons. This article definitely has a left-leaning perspective/bias. Most of the quotes included throughout the piece were from liberal public figures or liberal journalists. In addition, the article didn’t fully explain the effect of this ruling. In Mahmoud v. Taylor, the Supreme Court granted the parents a preliminary injunction, but ultimately sent the case back to the lower courts for a full hearing (remanded the case). By leaving out this key piece of information, this article is somewhat misleading to readers. The author also states that this court case “could potentially implement policies similar to Florida’s infamous ‘Don’t Say Gay’ law across United States public schools.” While a lot of these broad statements are made throughout the article, I view them more as opinions rather than fact. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article shares how U.S. strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites. However, other sources say the exact opposite. It is confusing to know whether the strikes did some damage or if this source, often left-leaning, has chosen biased sources to back up the narrative they'd like to portray.

This article shares how U.S. strikes on Iran did not destroy nuclear sites. However, other sources say the exact opposite. It is confusing to know whether the strikes did some damage or if this source, often left-leaning, has chosen bias sources to back up the narrative they'd like to portray.

Honestly, this article is deeply concerning. The amount of fear-based propaganda is extraordinary. It’s also quite revealing in its religious discrimination, especially against Muslims. First of all, Europe isn’t unlivable because of immigrants—the real issues are the lack of housing and the rising cost of food. With limited land and densely packed cities, many European countries have struggled to house their own citizens since the early 2000s. The article opens with the line: “Now that a critical mass of voters in our largest city have decided to support a socialist Muslim rapper from Uganda who openly despises every founding principle of this country…” a sentence loaded with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racially charged implications. It then goes on to make wild claims that New York, under this so-called "Muslim socialist" ideology, would “eliminate the police department,” “nationalize the grocery stores,” and “fund sex changes for children.” These statements are not only exaggerated but have no grounding in actual policy proposals. To claim that New York would become “completely uninhabitable” under such a platform is irresponsible. Rather than promoting discussion or understanding, this kind of rhetoric fuels fear, division, and misinformation.

Honestly, this article is deeply concerning. The amount of fear-based propaganda is extraordinary. It’s also quite revealing in its religious discrimination, especially against Muslims. First of all, Europe isn’t unlivable because of immigrants—the real issues are the lack of housing and the rising cost of food. With limited land and densely packed cities, many European countries have struggled to house their own citizens since the early 2000s. The article opens with the line: “Now that a critical mass of voters in our largest city have decided to support a socialist Muslim rapper from Uganda who openly despises every founding principle of this country…” a sentence loaded with xenophobic, Islamophobic, and racially charged implications. It then goes on to make wild claims that New York, under this so-called "Muslim socialist" ideology, would “eliminate the police department,” “nationalize the grocery stores,” and “fund sex changes for children.” These statements are not only exaggerated but have no grounding in actual policy proposals. To claim that New York would become “completely uninhabitable” under such a platform is irresponsible. Rather than promoting discussion or understanding, this kind of rhetoric fuels fear, division, and misinformation.

This post accuses liberals of pushing culture of death and frames those who are prochoice as baby murderers. It also takes a hot topic about whether it is okay to euthanize you dying dog by shooting it instead of taking it to the vet as a partisan debate, and anyone who is pro-choice as a hypocrite. This is clearly a heavily slanted, loaded article.

The article uses a contentious issue as a platform to propagate insults and loaded phrasing against political sides the author stands against. It makes statements without supporting them. While they do work to support the claim in the headline itself with numbers, the article is premature in its celebration, considering the relative recency of President Trump's immigration policies. The extremely loaded language and loosely supported statements make this troubling news.

The article uses a contentious issue as a platform to propagate insults and loaded phrasing against political sides the author stands against. It makes statements without supporting them. While they do work to support the claim in the headline itself with numbers, the article is premature in its celebration, considering the relative recency of President Trump's immigration policies. The extremely loaded language and loosely supported statements make this troubling news.

This is misleading as I fact checked the claim with other sources and the claim is false.

While nothing is inherently incorrect in this article, it puts an extreme emphasis on the national impacts of the election. While there are some theories that this will send waves throughout the DNC, saying it definitely will may be an overstatement that, so far, has not had enough time to indicate what will happen.

While nothing is inherently incorrect in this article, it puts an extreme emphasis on the national impacts of the election. While there are some theories that this will send waves throughout the DNC, saying it definitely will may be an overstatement that, so far, has not had enough time to indicate what will happen.