Previous Troubling Reports

This article's language leans conservative: first, the article title suggests Illinois's policy concerning trans athletes is the root of the conflict, when the policy has never changed and was not at the forefront of national attention until Trump's executive order to ban trans athletes from women's sports. Their resistance to the executive order was characterized as the state using the same "playbook" as another state in resistance, Maine, rather than acknowledging Illinois's adherence to its own state policies. There is a greater emphasis on Republican state GOP lawmakers in opposition to Illinois's ruling, rather than those in defense of the ruling. The situation is further framed in a pro-trans-athlete light by highlighting a mother who advocated for the ban, but none from the opposing side.

The article relies on information from a language learning website, without giving a link to the representative of the company/source they are talking to. They falsely claim children are developing Fortnite accents and that "if your child has developed the accent, experts say it could indicate that they're not spending enough time making real-world connections." It's a vague statement that implies the accents are lasting and detrimental.

This article spreads misinformation by comparing global cooperation to colonial conquest, which distorts historical facts and misleads readers about modern institutions. It falsely equates efforts like climate policy or multiculturalism with violent control, creating fear around international collaboration. The author presents personal opinions as facts, using emotionally charged language without evidence to support the claims. By framing globalist ideas as a threat to freedom and national identity, the article encourages division and distrust based on inaccurate or exaggerated information.

The term "protect" is very subjective in this instance and obviously biased against trans athletes instead of providing a middle-ground approach.

The article is entirely not based on facts and there is a lot of damaging information here that is based on baseless claims.

A false headline led to a multi-trillion-dollar swing in the U.S. stock market. That level of volatility—caused by misinformation—shows how sensitive financial markets are to news and how quickly investor behavior can be manipulated. It’s not just theoretical harm; people lost (and made) real money in minutes based on inaccurate reporting.

This article contains a lot of insinuation of moral superiority over the "entitled crybaby" Democrats, which is also intentionally degrading language used to name the Democrats who booed Donald Trump in the Kennedy Center. The article fails to mention that it is common for people to boo any public figure they disagree with, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Implying they booed Trump "over nothing" and that he was merely "governing like a Democrat 30 years ago" is a bit contradictory and hypocritical. John Nolte also addresses the audience as if they are all in agreement with his sentiment, when a large portion of the American population is also Democrat or moderate, and might not view Democrats' actions as unacceptable.

This article contains a lot of insinuation of moral superiority over the "entitled crybaby" Democrats, which is also intentionally degrading language used to name the Democrats who booed Donald Trump in the Kennedy Center. The article fails to mention that it is common for people to boo any public figure they disagree with, on both sides of the ideological spectrum. Implying they booed Trump "over nothing" and that he was merely "governing like a Democrat 30 years ago" is a bit contradictory and hypocritical. John Nolte also addresses the audience as if they are all in agreement with his sentiment, when a large portion of the American population is also Democrat or moderate, and might not view Democrats' actions as unacceptable.

It displays a lot of false information and damaging information as well. There are also many opinions displayed throughout the report and many of them are fairly insulting. Also there are some false quotes from the Daily Mail in the article.

The manifesto of the elementary school shooter was recently released to the public, two years after the tragic event. The article fixates on the shooter’s gender identity, emphasizing that she was trans, hated her body, America, and her race, and labeling her a violent leftist. It strongly suggests that the delay in releasing the manifesto was part of a larger cover-up to hide her supposed leftist allegiance. However, it fails to mention that the families of the victims had been in court urging against the release—not because of any “leftist agenda,” but out of concern for public safety and respect for the grieving community. This is not an unusual request; many families in similar tragedies seek to avoid sensationalism that could inspire copycat attacks or shift the narrative from collective mourning to the disturbed motives of the perpetrator. Instead of honoring this, the article uses the moment to equate all trans people with mental illness, weaponizing one person’s horrific actions to justify discrimination against an entire group.

The article claims that Democrats never truly believed in climate change—otherwise, they would not have “destroy[ed] the vehicles that were supposed to save Earth from sure global warming destruction.” It uses the public’s distaste for Elon Musk and the backlash he has received as an opportunity to paint Democrats and liberals as violent and to deny the existence of climate change. This piece spreads misinformation about who was responsible for the attacks on Teslas and falsely labels all undocumented immigrants as dangerous criminals. In reality, Democrats have been advocating for the return of deported immigrants who were removed without due process or warning.

Aside from being blatantly racist and disrespectful—giving the subject a fake name and using a cartoonified image of Patrick Star to stereotype Black women—the article goes out of its way to blame the subject's mistake on her supposed inability to perform her job due to her gender, as if similar incidents haven't already occurred with white male officers. The article includes problematic quotes such as, “If you’re pulled over by a lady cop, it’s time to hunker down and crank up those survival instincts—because odds are, you’re about to become the victim of a ‘whoopsie’ moment.” This is deeply concerning because the article weaponizes a tragic moment to undermine DEI initiatives that aim to reform workplaces and reduce the likelihood of such accidents. Instead of viewing this as an opportunity to improve training protocols or address individual accountability, it generalizes incompetence across multiple marginalized groups—while once again ignoring more severe and fatal incidents where female officers were not the perpetrators.