Previous Troubling Reports

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.

Local authorities and fact checkers have debunked these false claims of two girls being rescued from a tree, and also the false claim about George Strait donating $3.5 million and personally helping with rescues. Also, it was falsely depicted that Taylor Swift and Selena Gomez also were on the scene and donated $1 million each. Strait's publicist confirmed the donation stories were made up and the celebrity rescue images and stories came from unreliable sources.

Social media postings circulated the claim that Joe Biden had issued an Executive Order 9066 granting $5,000 Visa gift cards, a cell phone, and domestic airfare to migrants entering the U.S illegally. The reality of this is that no such executive order exists, no federal policy provides these benefits to migrants and associated press labeled the claim as completed ''fabricated'' in their weekly ''Not Real News'' fact check. This incorrect information attributes highly implausible and documented benefits to official government action. Also, repeated misinformation of this kind undermines credible journalism and confuses public dialogue around immigration and policy.

Social media postings circulated the claim that Joe Biden had issued an Executive Order 9066 granting $5,000 Visa gift cards, a cell phone, and domestic airfare to migrants entering the U.S illegally. The reality of this is that no such executive order exists, no federal policy provides these benefits to migrants and associated press labeled the claim as completed ''fabricated'' in their weekly ''Not Real News'' fact check. This incorrect information attributes highly implausible and documented benefits to official government action. Also, repeated misinformation of this kind undermines credible journalism and confuses public dialogue around immigration and policy.

While the core event is real (Kessler’s departure), the framing is misleading. Much of Nolte’s article consists of hyperbolic or unsubstantiated claims. There is no documented evidence that Kessler was engaged in serial dishonesty or that his exit reflects moral or professional disgrace, nor was there partisan pressure for his removal. That framing misleads the reader, distorts the nature of his work, and elevates opinions as though they were verified facts.

The first two sentences of the article say: "Vaccines surely are NOT what they used to be. Nowadays, kids have to get 70 vaccines by age seven just to attend daycare and school, or society deems them a threat because of infectious disease fear-mongering." The headline and first two sentences alone indicate unrestrained exaggeration in the writing, which are bad signs for the factuality of this article. The rest of the paragraph is written in increasingly strong language, applying unneeded emphasis on negative labels for vaccines and people who accept them. Interestingly, the rest of the article is written in significantly less combative language, switching to a more professional, analytical tone. Notably, the article does not directly link the survey it takes its information from. Instead, it links another similar article from another source, which links to another article, which links to the original survey from JAMA Network. Here is the link to the survey: https://jamanetwork.com/journals/jamanetworkopen/fullarticle/2836417 The survey seems to be reputable and the analytical portions of this article draw defendable conclusions from the reported numbers, but the initial headline and first paragraph contribute to misinformation via exaggeration and combative language.