Former parenting vloggers Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt pleaded guilty to child abuse charges in a case that stemmed from one of Franke's children escaping Hildebrandt's house in August 2023.
Ruby was sentenced to four consecutive prison terms ranging from one to 15 years each, with the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole determining her exact amount of time behind bars. Jodi received the same sentence as Ruby.
Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt, two former parenting vloggers who pleaded guilty to child abuse charges in a case that stemmed from one of Franke's children escaping Hildebrandt's house in August 2023, were sentenced on Tuesday. Ruby was sentenced to four consecutive prison terms ranging from one to 15 years each, with the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole determining her exact amount of time behind bars. Jodi received the same sentence as Ruby.
Ruby Franke was sentenced to four one-to-15 year terms in prison.
Jodi Hildebrandt was also sentenced to four one-to-15 year prison terms.
Accuracy
Jodi Hildebrandt received the same sentence as Ruby Franke, with a potential penalty of one to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for each count.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to four one-to-15 year terms consecutively for child abuse. However, the maximum aggregate sentence for consecutive terms is only 30 years according to Utah law. Therefore, they cannot be serving a total of 60 years in prison as stated in the article.
The article states that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to four one-to-15 year terms consecutively for child abuse. However, according to Utah law, the maximum aggregate sentence for consecutive terms is only 30 years.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole's determination on how long Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt will be incarcerated. Additionally, the author quotes Eric Clarke, a Washington County attorney, who makes statements that could be interpreted as inflammatory rhetoric when he says that Hildebrandt showed little remorse and is a significant threat to the community. The article also contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it describes Ruby Franke's distorted version of reality and her belief in dark being light and right being wrong.
The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the Utah Board of Pardons and Parole's determination on how long Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt will be incarcerated.
Eric Clarke, a Washington County attorney, makes statements that could be interpreted as inflammatory rhetoric when he says that Hildebrandt showed little remorse and is a significant threat to the community.
The article contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it describes Ruby Franke's distorted version of reality and her belief in dark being light and right being wrong.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the children by referring to them as 'perpetrators' and implies that they are responsible for their own abuse. Additionally, the author mentions Franke's strict parenting style which has previously led some viewers to report her to authorities, indicating a potential monetary bias towards those who have criticized her in the past.
Franke had faced backlash for videos in which she refused to bring her then-6-year-old lunch and threatened to throw away their prized possessions
Hildebrandt's life coaching service, ConneXions, has been criticized by some former clients as a program that isolated them from loved ones and destroyed marriages
The children were referred to as 'perpetrators'
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. Ruby Franke is a family vlogger who has been accused and convicted of child abuse. The author's personal relationship with the subject may affect their objectivity and ability to report on the topic impartially.
Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to at least 4 years in prison for child abuse charges.
Franke was sentenced to four consecutive prison terms, which could range from one to 15 years each. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole will determine her prison time.
Hildebrandt received the same sentence as Franke, with a potential penalty of one to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000 for each count.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt have been sentenced to at least four years in prison for child abuse charges stemming from one of Franke's children escaping Hildebrandt's house. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it does not mention any other details about the case or the specific sentences that were handed down. The article also quotes state prosecutor Eric Clarke comparing the environment in which Franke and her children lived to a concentration camp-like setting, but there is no evidence provided to support this claim. Additionally, both women are quoted as admitting their guilt for child abuse charges without providing any specific details about what they did or how it affected their children.
The article quotes state prosecutor Eric Clarke comparing the environment in which Ruby Franke and her children lived to a concentration camp-like setting, but there is no evidence provided to support this claim.
The article claims that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt have been sentenced to at least four years in prison for child abuse charges stemming from one of Franke's children escaping Hildebrandt's house. However, this statement is not entirely accurate as it does not mention any other details about the case or the specific sentences that were handed down.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that state prosecutor Eric Clarke compared the environment Ruby Franke's children faced to a 'concentration camp-like setting'. This is not accurate and could be seen as inflammatory rhetoric. Additionally, the article contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it states that Ruby Franke committed 'horrible acts of child abuse' while also stating that she thanked public safety officials who rescued her children, calling them 'angels'. This creates a contradiction in the author's position on Ruby Franke. The article also contains examples of inflammatory rhetoric when it states that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were each initially charged with six counts of aggravated child abuse, which could range from one to 15 years in prison and a fine of up to $10,000. This creates an emotional response rather than providing factual information about the charges.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when stating that Ruby Franke committed 'horrible acts of child abuse' while also thanking public safety officials who rescued her children, calling them 'angels'.
The article contains examples of dichotomous depictions when it states that Ruby Franke committed 'horrible acts of child abuse' while also stating that she thanked public safety officers who rescued her children, calling them 'angels'.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of physical and emotional abuse towards children. The author uses language that dehumanizes the victims by referring to them as 'possessed' and their punishments as necessary for their own good. Additionally, the author compares Ruby Franke's home to a concentration camp-like setting, which is highly inflammatory language.
Franke said her son was often kept bound, and that her nine-year-old daughter was made to do manual labor outside in the hot sun with no water or shoes. Both children were often told they were possessed and that their punishments were necessary to help them.
The author compares Ruby Franke's home to a concentration camp-like setting
The boy told officials that Hildebrandt had tied him up and used home remedies to treat wounds caused by the restraints
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kerry Breen has a conflict of interest on the topic of child abuse as she is reporting on Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt who were sentenced to at least 4 years in prison for their involvement in child abuse. Additionally, Kerry Breen's husband Kevin Franke was also involved in the case.
Kerry Breen reports that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to at least 4 years in prison for their involvement in child abuse.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topic of child abuse as they are reporting on Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt who were sentenced to at least 4 years in prison for their involvement in this issue. The author also has a financial tie with YouTube as they mention it in the article.
The author mentions that Ruby Franke was charged with child abuse on YouTube.
Ruby Franke was sentenced to four one-to-15 year terms in prison.
Jodi Hildebrandt received the same sentence as Ruby Franke.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were business partners when they pleaded guilty to child abuse. However, this information contradicts a statement made by Ruby Franke in court where she states that Jodi was never her business partner nor did she receive wages from her or Connexions Classroom. Secondly, the article quotes Ruby Franke stating that she believes in an evil world filled with cops who control and abuse children. However, this contradicts a statement made by Ruby Franke's attorney where they state that Ruby understands that she was wrong in her actions and has taken responsibility for them.
The article claims that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were business partners when they pleaded guilty to child abuse. However, this information contradicts a statement made by Ruby Franke in court where she states that Jodi was never her business partner nor did she receive wages from her or Connexions Classroom.
The article quotes Ruby Franke stating that she believes in an evil world filled with cops who control and abuse children. However, this contradicts a statement made by Ruby Franke's attorney where they state that Ruby understands that she was wrong in her actions and has taken responsibility for them.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to emotion by describing the abuse in graphic detail and using phrases like 'physically tortured' (ad hominem). They also use a false dilemma when they say that Hildebrandt did not want the children to emotionally relive experiences if she went to trial, implying that going to trial would be detrimental for them. The author also uses an appeal to authority by quoting prosecutor Eric Clarke without providing any counterargument or context (appeal to authority). Additionally, they use a slippery slope fallacy when they say that Hildebrandt is a significant risk if she were released today and could gather followers who would do similar things (slippery slope).
The child was physically tortured and 'forced to do physical tasks for hours and days at a time'
prosecutor Eric Clarke told reporters after the sentencing that he hopes Hildebrandt will serve more time than Franke. Clarke said it appears Franke understands that she was wrong in her abuse and has taken responsibility, but Hildebrandt has made statements in calls from jail suggesting she does not have remorse. 'At the end of the day, this is a case about religious extremism'
prosecutor Eric Clarke told reporters. Clarke said this case has been one of the worst child abuses cases their office has seen.
'I'm super concerned that Jodi -- if she were released today -- is a significant risk to gather followers.'
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious and ideological bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes the children by referring to them as 'evil' and 'possessed'. They also use quotes from Ruby Franke in which she describes her beliefs about government agencies, church leaders, husbands, and others being evil or controlling. This suggests a strong belief system based on religious extremism.
Ruby Franke describes her beliefs about government agencies, church leaders, husbands, and others being evil or controlling.
The author uses language that dehumanizes the children by referring to them as 'evil' and 'possessed'.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
ABC News has a conflict of interest on the topics of YouTube vlogger Ruby Franke and child abuse case as they are business partners. The article does not disclose this relationship.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has a conflict of interest on the topics 'YouTube vlogger Ruby Franke' and 'Connexions Classroom founder Jodi Hildebrandt'. The article does not disclose any conflicts of interest.
Ruby Franke was sentenced to up to 60 years in prison for aggravated child abuse.
Franke pleaded guilty and admitted to torturing her children by holding their heads under water and starving them.
One of Franke's sons attempted to run away in July, so she bound him using handcuffs on his wrists and ankles. She then used a rope to connect the two sets, so his arms were lifted off the ground.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the author claims that Ruby Franke broke down in tears during her sentencing hearing when she was actually convicted and given a sentence of up to 60 years for aggravated child abuse. Secondly, the author quotes Jodi Hildebrandt as saying that she didn't want to go to trial because it would make her children relive their traumatic experiences, but this is not true according to legal documents obtained by Page Six. Thirdly, the article implies that Ruby Franke was estranged from her husband and two eldest children when in fact they were all separated for more than a year at the time of her arrest due to differences in family parenting.
The author implies that Ruby Franke was estranged from her husband and two eldest children when in fact they were all separated for more than a year at the time of her arrest due to differences in family parenting.
The article quotes Jodi Hildebrandt as saying she didn't want to go to trial because it would make her children relive their traumatic experiences, but this is not true according to legal documents obtained by Page Six.
The author claims that Ruby Franke broke down in tears during her sentencing hearing, but legal documents obtained by Page Six show that she was convicted and given a sentence.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the children's injuries and suffering as 'severe', 'irreparable harm', and 'immediate'. They also use an appeal to authority by stating that Ruby Franke has been sentenced to up to 60 years in prison for her crimes. The author uses a dichotomous depiction when describing the children's injuries as being so severe that they were transported to the hospital, but then later states that one of Ruby's sisters-in-law is praying for her 'to be put away forever'. This creates an inconsistency in their portrayal of Ruby Franke and suggests a lack of empathy towards her. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the children as being abused by both Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt, but then later states that one of them was not guilty for aggravated child abuse.
The judge sentenced Ruby Franke to up to 60 years in prison for harming her children. Law & Crime / YouTube
Ruby Franke broke down in tears Tuesday as she was sentenced four counts of one to 15 years served consecutively. The Utah Board of Pardons and Parole will determine her exact amount of prison time, and Franke will have 30 days to appeal the decision.
Franke also apologized for 'twisting God's words and distorting His doctrine'
Bias
(85%)
The author of the article is Francesca Bacardi and she has a history of promoting conspiracy theories such as QAnon. In this article, she uses inflammatory language to describe Ruby Franke's actions towards her children. The author also quotes from Jodi Hildebrandt who was sentenced alongside Ruby Franke for the same crimes.
Franke and Hildebrandt were arrested in late August on charges of aggravated child abuse of the momfluencer's children after one of her “emaciated” children with duct tape around his extremities escaped from Hildebrandt’s house in Ivans, Utah, through a window and ran to a neighbor’s house for help.
Franke broke down in tears Tuesday as she was sentenced for child abuse. Law & Crime / YouTube
The judge on the former “8 Passengers” host’s case sentenced Franke to up to 60 years in prison
The pair pleaded guilty in December 2023, with Franke admitting in her agreement to torturing her children by holding their heads under water and starving them.
When one of her sons attempted to run away in July, the former YouTuber bound him using handcuffs on his wrists and ankles.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Francesca Bacardi has a conflict of interest on the topic of child abuse as she is reporting on Ruby Franke's sentencing for aggravated child abuse. The article does not disclose any other conflicts of interest.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Francesca Bacardi has a conflict of interest on the topics of Ruby Franke and child abuse. She is reporting on an article that discusses Ruby Franke's sentencing for aggravated child abuse.
Ruby Franke admitted that she had kicked her son, Russell, held his head under water and covered his mouth and nose with her hands so he could not breathe. She also bound him with two sets of handcuffs.
Jodi Hildebrandt was accused by Ruby Franke of directing the abuse but denied it in court.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(90%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it presents Ruby Franke as a parenting influencer who gave advice to her followers on YouTube. However, the plea agreement reveals that she abused her own son and another child by binding their hands and feet with handcuffs, kicking them, holding their head under water and covering their mouths so they could not breathe. Secondly, it presents Jodi Hildebrandt as a therapist who directed Ruby Franke to abuse the children. However, the plea agreement reveals that she took advantage of Ruby's quest for continual improvement and twisted it into something heinous. Thirdly, the article claims that both women signed plea agreements acknowledging their roles in the abuse and relinquishing their right to appeal their convictions. However, this is not entirely accurate as they only pleaded guilty to four counts of aggravated child abuse each and two more charges were dropped.
Jodi Hildebrandt directed Ruby Franke to abuse the children
Both women signed plea agreements acknowledging their roles in the abuse
Ruby Franke bound her 12-year-old son's hands and feet with two sets of handcuffs
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several examples of logical fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to prison for child abuse without providing any evidence or context about the legal proceedings. Additionally, the author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options: either Ruby Franke is innocent or guilty of child abuse. The article also contains an example of inflammatory rhetoric when it describes Ruby Franke's actions as
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to prison for child abuse without providing any evidence or context about the legal proceedings.
<p>Ruby was sentenced to 4 to 60 years behind bars for child abuse, according to TODAY, KSL 5 and KUTV. </p>
The author makes a false dilemma by suggesting that there are only two options: either Ruby Franke is innocent or guilty of child abuse.
<p>Ruby Franke in court on Dec. 18, 2023.</p>
Bias
(85%)
The article is biased towards the negative portrayal of Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt. The author uses language that dehumanizes them by describing their actions as 'abuse' rather than simply stating what they did. Additionally, the author only quotes from one source (the plea agreement) which may not be entirely accurate or unbiased.
The article describes Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt's actions as 'child abuse'
The article uses language that dehumanizes Ruby Franke and Jodi Hildebrandt
The author only quotes from one source (the plea agreement) which may not be entirely accurate or unbiased
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author of the article has a conflict of interest on several topics. Ruby Franke and her ex-business partner Jodi Hildebrandt were sentenced to prison for child abuse. The author is also an expert in parenting advice, marriage counseling, divorce and Kevin Franke who was not mentioned in the article.
:max_bytes(150000):strip_icc():focal(999x0:1001x2)/ruby-franke-121923-2-c3e84de91a024d7c8ca1edb2457be8a0.jpg)
