Previous Troubling Reports

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.

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.

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.

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.

This article described the Trump administration’s recent decision to bomb Iran’s nuclear sites during ongoing conflict between Iran and Israel. While the author gave lots of details on the B-2 bunker-buster bombs and the newly announced ceasefire, there were a very large number of opinion statements presented as fact. The author made it clear that he did not agree with Trump’s decision to bomb Iran. He strongly backed Barack Obama’s Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action (JCPOA), the Iran nuclear deal that Donald Trump withdrew from in 2018. The author stated, “That outcome [the JCPOA] should be the preferred objective of U.S. policy.” A lot of loaded language/rhetoric was used to criticize Trump and those who supported his decision. The author claimed that anyone who feels relief after this bombing should be cautious, claiming that the “euphoria will soon wear off.” In addition, the article seems to be one-sided, presenting only the author’s side of the issue without including any counter arguments. This is why I think this news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article used very biased language to talk about the recent event of Trump launching bombs at Iran. This could be misinformation because instead of talk about the problem at hand, the article just bashes Trumps character.

First, the article does not define what ICE's "job" even is. The article does not mention the survey size is 1,512 people until after its most inflammatory extrapolations, and it is buried between hyperlinked ads. The article is written in a way that attempts to extrapolate the views of 700-900 people onto the nation, as it rarely says anything such as "a majority of respondents" rather just "a majority".

First, the article does not define what ICE's "job" even is. The article does not mention the survey size is 1,512 people until after its most inflammatory extrapolations, and it is buried between hyperlinked ads. The article is written in a way that attempts to extrapolate the views of 700-900 people onto the nation, as it rarely says anything such as "a majority of respondents" rather just "a majority".