Previous Troubling Reports

This could be troubling because the article seems to demean the reason why Trump is in Scotland. It pokes fun at his golf playing and plans on staying out of the public view. It puts the term working visit in quotations: "While the White House has called his five-day trip a “working visit,” it’s fairly light on the formal itinerary. " Maybe the trip truly is light on formal plans, but it seems weird to criticize the president for golfing at his golf course while there. It seems like an unnecessary thing to criticize him for. It makes me wonder if CNN would also criticize a liberal president for golfing too?

This article shows a clear bias towards Trump and presents his claims as newsworthy facts, instead of providing opposing sources with different information. The article briefly mentions that Winfrey and the Harris campaign denied payments, but the article doesn't actually provide equal weight to these rebuttals or include expert legal analysis about campaign finance law to contextualize Trump's claims.

So this article leans a bit pro-Trump, especially in how it frames his Supreme Court wins as big victories without really digging into the controversy around them. It uses loaded phrases like “aggressive second-term agenda” and mentions Biden only to compare how much more Trump has done, which feels like it's trying to make him look extra powerful or efficient. It presents the Justice Department’s view that federal judges are “activist” but doesn’t challenge that label, while also downplaying critics' concerns that Trump is avoiding proper legal processes. It glosses over the real impact of the rulings, like deportation policies and cutting education grants, and frames them as straightforward “wins.” It also skips over how unusual and secretive this “shadow docket” stuff is, only briefly touching on the concerns raised by liberal justices. So yeah, it’s not exactly fake news, but the tone definitely tilts and glosses over nuance.

This article is very emotive and clickbaity, presenting opinions and claims as absolute truth. It claims that Obama essentially served three terms because Biden was his "puppet," turned the United States communist country, and more. The degree of inflammatory language and biased language is very high, making it's reporting unreliable.

This way that this headline (and the whole article, really) is set up is designed to prod readers into believing that Mamdani’s father was misappropriating taxpayer dollars. This is not indicative of the truth. If you can read past the shameless editorializing, you’ll see that Mamdani applied for a special grant with the DOE… and got it. You don’t have to like that the DOE granted the request, or think that Mamdani’s reasoning for why he should qualify is sound. In that case, take it up with the DOE. This does not have anything to do with abuse or fraud, like the tone insinuates. Additionally, this entire article is clearly trying to set Zohran Mamdani up as some kind of co-conspirator or inheritor of treasonous tendencies. Which is also very weird.

The title of this article claims that Obama knew Russiagate intelligence was manufactured, and it says it as a fact. However, they do not have any proof about this, and they admit that they can not prove it as there is no document showing this. This is misinformation because they are making claims that they cannot support.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

I find this article to include some biases mainly through its framing and quotes included in the article. The main theme revolves around impeachment as a political strategy rather than a legal process. It consistently discusses impeachment in term of its impact on voters and electoral outcomes for both parties. The Republican quotes within this article portray Democrats in a negative light regarding impeachment.

This article frames the California government as being responsible for aid money that went to several organizations, even though the article admits that Fireaid has no connection to the California government, meaning this article is blaming the California government over the actions of a private organization.

The article omits certain important details, intended to suggest that Democrats are calling for a vote on the release of the Epstein files alone. It is important to note that many of these votes are amendments to other bills that are generally unrelated. Therefore, requiring representatives to vote in favor of the bill for the files to be released. This is a relatively common tactic for both parties, in which they can say that one party refuses to do something generally viewed as good, and outright ignore the rest of the bill.

This article spreads a lot of misinformation and extreme bias disguised as news. It falsely claims the Democratic Party is collapsing and accuses leaders like President Biden and Assemblymember Zohran Mamdani of either hiding major scandals or supporting terrorism, without providing any real evidence. It paints cities like San Francisco and Los Angeles as completely destroyed, which is a huge exaggeration that ignores complex issues like housing and inequality. The article also wrongly labels progressive politicians as communists and accuses the Democratic Party of hating Jewish people and America itself, an incredibly dangerous and unfounded claim.