Previous Troubling Reports

In this article, the author discusses President Trump's recent decision about U.S. involvement with Iran and Israel. The article described "frustrating" discussions and mentions of President Trump growing wary. While these could easily both be true, there were no citations or quotes to back this up, making it difficult to easily deem as true.

This article focuses on Karoline Leavitt's statements about Trump on the conflict between Iran and Israel, and we know that she is not a trustworthy source from the get-go. I find it interesting that Axios seems to maintain that Trump is still deciding on whether to take action, but doesn't mention the ongoing weapons supply the US is sending to Israel.

This article is slightly misleading as it seems to group protesters and rioters and does not seem to state any opinions from the opposing viewpoint.

This article is slightly misleading as it seems to group protesters and rioters and does not seem to state any opinions from the opposing viewpoint.

The article shows a clear pro-Trump bias. It focuses on a single poll from Rasmussen showing his approval at 50%, but most major polls actually have him lower, usually in the mid-40s. The piece doesn't mention that other surveys show most Americans think the country is on the wrong track, which paints a very different picture. Instead of offering balanced info or showing a range of polling data, it just highlights the one result that makes Trump look good. The tone of the article is also really upbeat and one-sided, almost like it's promoting him instead of reporting the facts. Overall, it feels more like a cheerleading piece than objective news.

This article skewes polling results, even though they are presented in an image within the article. The first misrepresentation comes from the journalist referring to the metrics of Democrats and republicans by those who voted for either Trump or Harris, even though that was not a part of the poll. Second, the article informs readers that 71% of Harris voters are against engaging in the Iran-Israel conflict, whereas the actual statistic is 65% of Democrats.

The use of "quietly" makes it seem like a conspiracy and a shameful thing to be hidden, but given the fact they have the information, it is public, as opposed to the murky web of super PACs that dark money can quietly be funneled through. The article proceeds to fear monger and push biased points when all that really happened is a civil society interest group made a public donation in furtherance of their interest, as is their want to do.

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The article makes a big deal about the media melting down over a decision by the supreme court, and portrays the 6-3 supreme court decision as obviously in the right. It sensationalizes the fact that many in both media and outside of that disapprove of a decision. Controversial supreme court decisions happen all the time, and the focus on said controversial supreme court decision is a fabricated "liberal media meltdown".

The title does not reflect the contents of the article, instead opting for sensational appeal as clickbait and misinformation for headline-scanners. It does not share any such thing as "America's big Iran secret," and the words "stunned" and "frantically" frame the interview between the two figures in emotion-based language that is not supported in the article.

In this article, it is stated that Trump dismissed what Tulsi, the Director of National Security, said back in March, that intelligence showed Iran was not building a nuclear weapon. Trump has now refuted this, seemingly to justify his support for Israel’s attack on Iran. Whether or not Iran was engaging in anything suspicious, it wasn’t detected under Tulsi’s watch. But there will be no civil war within the Trump administration; everyone is quick to fall in line. Tulsi will, too, backpedal and align with the administration’s support for Israel. Then, annoyingly, the article brings in opinions from Tucker Carlson and how Trump disagrees with him. Can’t a reporter leave out a once-good journalist who’s become so obsessed with the sound of his own voice that everything he says should now be taken with a grain of salt? Like, why is that even attached in the story?

I’m of the mind that if the headline is misinformative, even if the body of the article more fairly represents the issue, the work should be considered misinformation. We live in an era of pretty much exclusively headline-scanning, and news outlets know this. This headline is written to HEAVILY imply that every single woman/40+ year-old in the general American workforce could be fired. This is not at all the case. This article is about at-will employment within the Trump administration. Additionally, from the evidence provided in the article, the lawyer does not seem to be definitively stating that Trump can do so. The lawyer recognizes that this is a possibility to consider, and concedes that there may be issues of constitutional violation. While this is definitely what the lawyer is implying, there’s not really a strong, concrete stance, it seems. The clickbait-y headline just doesn’t line up.