Previous Troubling Reports

Well, first of all, the main page title is misleading. When you click on it, the headline changes entirely. The article implies that Trump and Putin had a close relationship, comparable to Bush and Blair, which simply isn’t true. While some of Trump’s diplomats may have maintained working ties with Russia, Trump himself has never truly "gotten along" with Putin. Let’s be honest: nobody really has. The idea of their so-called two-hour-long peace talks being productive is doubtful at best. Sky News isn’t necessarily spreading fake news, but the title was certainly misleading.

The inclusion of fabricated content in reputable newspapers undermines journalistic integrity and misleads readers into believing in the authenticity of the information presented.

The article spreads the false claim that Harvard and other universities can be connected to the recent killing of 2 Israeli diplomats without any evidence to suggest a link between the shooter and these universities. The article also claims that anti-semitism is fueled by DEI, without mention of the mechanism behind this supposed relationship. The article also implies a connection between protests and murders, a claim that, if believed, would put the First Amendment in jeopardy.

The article spreads the false claim that Harvard and other universities can be connected to the recent killing of 2 Israeli diplomats without any evidence to suggest a link between the shooter and these universities. The article also claims that anti-semitism is fueled by DEI, without mention of the mechanism behind this supposed relationship. The article also implies a connection between protests and murders, a claim that, if believed, would put the First Amendment in jeopardy.

The title is very misleading. It implies that JD Vance reported something he said to Pope Francis that may have contributed to his death, especially with the "it will raise some eyebrows" statement. In reality, the article only discusses a conversation JD Vance had with Pope Leo, and it was merely a discussion of current-day issues like Russia and Ukraine. The title is deliberately misleading, and the content of the article has nothing to do with the title.

The title is somewhat misleading but the context of the article is what is most biased. Henneke claims that people are traveling more due to "Trumps economy and a more hopeful outlook on the future." He talks about lower gas and egg prices (which depends on location but he does not mention that) and claims that if either Harris or Biden had won the election the cost would of gone up and Americans would not be traveling. Henneke remarks are not backed and just blatantly biased.

The headline implies that the social security commissioner is incompetent by referencing his statement out of context while actually discussing the quote as an ice-breaker and clearly-intended joke throughout the article, making it clear that the headline is intentionally misleading.

Claims that the Former FBI director wrote a book mirroring persecution of Alex Jones is inaccurate. Claims that Alex Jones was persecuted by the Obama administration is inaccurate.

Making claims in this article that are not based on truth or fact but are extremely opinionated.

Making claims in this article that are not based on truth or fact but are extremely opinionated.

The title is misleading/clickbait and only relies on a content creator as the source of the article rather than verified experts.

Joe wasn’t defending Kanye West’s song, he was defending freedom of speech. If you listen to the full segment, Joe points out the irony: Kanye rants against Jewish people, yet likely still buys diamond-encrusted jewelry from them. In America, we have the First Amendment, and defining hate speech is complicated. Joe wasn’t promoting the song; he understands that when something is banned, public curiosity increases. By allowing Kanye to broadcast his music, people can judge for themselves just how vile and disturbing it really is.