Previous Troubling Reports

This article doesn't explain any of the methods that were used to conduct this poll. It doesn't mention how many people were polled or anything about them. It just showcases this one polls that shows Trump in a positive light, while there are numerous other polls that have different results.

The article claims that the U.S. bombing Iran was due to his "Khazarian handlers." There is no evidence that indicates this is the case, but the article uses a lot of highly pointed and inflammatory claims, including "that whole carefully cultivated image of [Trump] being a political ‘dove’ was fastidiously created by his ever-manipulative Khazarian handlers over decades" and "Khazarian handlers mentored and mind-controlled, trained and socially engineered [Trump]...for his second [civilization-destroying] term." All of it is speculative, without proof or evidence, and clearly very politicized.

Within this article there are many loaded bias phrases by the author. Term such as "obliterated", "must destroy", or "completely and totally obliterated" demonstrate powerful imagery which amplifies a dramatic effect pushing for a militaristic narrative. I would also say that this article relies heavily on statements from President Trump, the Pentagon, and Israeli elites and does not include information from Iran officials or regional experts making the narrative kind of one sided. In addition, the article provides insufficient detail on alternatives, civilian impact, or the long-term consequences at hand.

This article is slightly misleading as it does not have any proper sources/citations linked within the article to prove some of the claims made within it regarding Trump's decisions surrounding Iran.

The title of this article is somewhat biased, though not as much as the article itself. The author, Joe Sommerlad, uses facts in an attempt to convince readers that his opinions are also factual. Instead of simply presenting factual information and quotes, he inserts his opinions throughout the piece.

This article describes the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, along with Donald Trump and the United States’ possible intervention. Throughout the article, the author claimed that the Trump administration has credibility problems. He included multiple quotes from Donald Trump himself and from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The quotes were compared to eventually find contradictory information about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. While the article uses multiple sources and different quotes to boost its reliability and credibility, it does insert some inherent bias on behalf of the author about Donald Trump in general. The author states, “Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says,” and “Trump often seems to say whatever’s politically expedient at a given point in time.” The author also heavily pointed to Trump manipulating intelligence to purposely lie to the American people. Some of these comments were a little unnecessary in telling a truly unbiased/neutral story. When a journalist lets their own opinions bleed into their writing, the presentation of the information is skewed. This is why I think this CNN news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

This article describes the recent conflict between Israel and Iran, along with Donald Trump and the United States’ possible intervention. Throughout the article, the author claimed that the Trump administration has credibility problems. He included multiple quotes from Donald Trump himself and from his Director of National Intelligence, Tulsi Gabbard. The quotes were compared to eventually find contradictory information about Iran’s development of nuclear weapons. While the article uses multiple sources and different quotes to boost its reliability and credibility, it does insert some inherent bias on behalf of the author about Donald Trump in general. The author states, “Trump over the years has proven anything but careful about the things he says,” and “Trump often seems to say whatever’s politically expedient at a given point in time.” The author also heavily pointed to Trump manipulating intelligence to purposely lie to the American people. Some of these comments were a little unnecessary in telling a truly unbiased/neutral story. When a journalist lets their own opinions bleed into their writing, the presentation of the information is skewed. This is why I think this CNN news article is troubling and contributing to misinformation.

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.