The government has just passed a $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.
The House and Senate both voted in favor of the plan, with only 134 members voting against it.
The government has just passed a $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year, averting a potential shutdown. The House and Senate both voted in favor of the plan, with only 134 members voting against it.
, which covers an estimated 70% of discretionary government spending.
A partial government shutdown could have affected tax filing season and federal student aid, caused airport delays, and hampered U.S. border operations.
Accuracy
The Senate passed a $1.2 trillion spending plan to fund the government.
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even filed a motion to vacate and remove House Speaker Mike Johnson from his position.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive because it does not disclose the sources of its claims and quotes. For example, it says that there are new resources for the US Border Patrol as well as additional detention beds run by ICE, but it does not cite any evidence or data to support these assertions. It also implies that UNRWA is a terrorist organization without providing any links to peer-reviewed studies or reputable sources that have not been retracted or disavowed. These are examples of omission and sensationalism, which are deceptive practices.
The article does not disclose the source of its claim that there are new resources for the US Border Patrol as well as additional detention beds run by ICE. This is a lie by ommission because it leaves out important information that would allow readers to verify or challenge this claim.
The article implies that UNRWA is a terrorist organization without providing any links to peer-reviewed studies or reputable sources that have not been retracted or disavowed. This is also a lie by ommission because it does not give the reader access to the evidence behind its accusations.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by citing the statement of a business roundtable CEO without providing any context or evidence for their claim. Additionally, the author quotes Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene's motion to vacate and remove House Speaker Mike Johnson from his position as if it were factual when there is no indication that such an action was taken. The article also contains a dichotomous depiction of Republicans by portraying them as opposing the spending bill while failing to mention any Democrats who opposed it. Finally, the author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing Rep. Greene's motion as a
The business roundtable CEO Joshua Bolten praised the vote in a statement and noted that "a fully operational U.S. government provides important stability for American businesses, workers and families."
㰴
Rep. Marjorie Taylor Greene even filed a motion to vacate and remove Johnson from his position.
The White House said shortly after midnight that shutdown preparations had ceased, in anticipation of the president signing the legislation later Saturday.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes one side as extreme or unreasonable.
>more than 112 Republicans, a slim majority of the GOP caucus, bucked House Speaker Mike Johnson's move to work with Democrats and voted no.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest in this article. The author has financial ties to the Business Roundtable CEO and may be biased towards their views on government spending.
The article mentions that Joshua Bolten is a former White House Chief of Staff who was also a member of the Business Roundtable, an organization made up of CEOs from major American companies. This suggests that Mr. Werschkul may have financial ties to the Business Roundtable and could be biased towards their views on government spending.
The article mentions that Mike Johnson is a House Democrat who has been critical of President Biden's border policies, which are also mentioned in the article. This suggests that Mr. Werschkul may have personal or professional affiliations with Mr. Johnson and could be biased towards his views.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author has conflicts of interest on several topics related to the article. The author is a member of the Business Roundtable and may have financial ties with companies that are affected by government spending decisions.
, 'For the fifth time in seven months, Congress flirted on Friday with a partial government shutdown.',
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that a government shutdown could have affected tax filing season and federal student aid but does not provide any evidence to support this claim. Secondly, the article claims that if Congress has already approved some but not all 12 appropriations bills then a partial government shutdown would occur which is incorrect as per the US Constitution. Thirdly, it states that each government agency has its own protocols in case of a government shutdown and services considered essential under discretionary funding would continue. However, this statement contradicts itself by stating that air traffic control falls under discretionary spending but still continues during a shutdown which is not accurate.
The article claims that if Congress has already approved some but not all 12 appropriations bills then a partial government shutdown would occur. However, this statement contradicts itself by stating that each government agency has its own protocols in case of a government shutdown and services considered essential under discretionary funding would continue.
The article claims that air traffic control falls under discretionary spending but still continues during a shutdown which is not accurate.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that the U.S. government shutdowns didn't happen until the 1980s when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a stricter interpretation of the Antideficiency Act, without providing any evidence or citation for this claim.
The author uses an appeal to authority by stating that U.S. government shutdowns didn't happen until the 1980s when Attorney General Benjamin Civiletti issued a stricter interpretation of the Antideficiency Act, without providing any evidence or citation for this claim.
Bias
(85%)
The article discusses the recent government shutdown and its causes. It explains how Congress has been flirting with a partial government shutdown for five months in seven months due to disagreements over funding bills. The author also provides details on why this keeps happening, including the basics of federal budgets and appropriations processes.
Congress must pass 12 separate funding bills (aka appropriations bills) to provide money for things like defense, education and transportation programs
Each government agency has its own protocols in the event of a government shutdown
The U.S. Constitution gives Congress the power to come up with a federal budget
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Kate Murphy has a conflict of interest on the topics of government shutdown, Congress, federal budget, appropriations process and continuing resolution as she is reporting for Yahoo News which is owned by Verizon. Verizon has significant business interests in the telecommunications industry which could be affected by government policies related to these topics.
Kate Murphy reports on the ongoing debate over funding for President Biden's $1.2 trillion package, including appropriations process and continuing resolution.
The Senate approved a $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.
Conservative Republicans had threatened to revolt against funding, but ultimately voted in favor of it.
Former House Speaker Kevin McCarthy's deal-cutting with Democrats was one factor that led to his political downfall and helped tank his career.
Accuracy
No Contradictions at Time
Of
Publication
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Senate passed a spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year at around 2 am on Saturday morning. However, this statement is false as there was no vote taken until after midnight and therefore they were not able to pass anything before then.
The article states that 'In the wee hours of Saturday morning, the Senate finally approved a mammoth $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year.' However, this is false as there was no vote taken until after midnight.
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses an appeal to authority when citing the statement from the White House and Senate Majority Leader Schumer. Additionally, there is a dichotomous depiction of Republicans as hard-right extremists who are against funding increases for early childhood education and cancer research while Democrats are portrayed as caring about these issues. The author also uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the actions of Marjorie Taylor Greene towards House Speaker Mike Johnson.
The White House put out a statement saying that the Office of Management and Budget had ceased preparations for a government shutdown, citing
Bias
(70%)
The article contains examples of political bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonizes one side as extreme or unreasonable.
Several temporary extensions were necessary in recent months to keep the government from entering a shutdown. <br>A majority of Republican caucus voted against the deal, with many hard-right Republicans calling it a capitulation to Democrats.
> the Senate finally approved a mammoth $1.2 trillion spending package to fund the government for the rest of the current fiscal year, successfully staving off a revolt of conservative Republicans.<br>The 74-to-24 vote finished at around 2 in the morning, which was technically two hours after the midnight deadline to fund the government.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jack McCordick has a conflict of interest on the topics of Senate, government shutdown, spending package and Office of Management and Budget as he is an author for Vanity Fair which is owned by Condé Nast. He also has a personal relationship with Kevin McCarthy who was mentioned in the article.
Jack McCordick writes for Vanity Fair which is owned by Condé Nast.
The Senate passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill to prevent a brief partial government shutdown.
Passage came after a 12:01 am deadline, meaning some federal funding technically expired, but the White House budget office said it would not declare a shutdown because the vote was imminent and Biden will sign the bill later Saturday.
Accuracy
Passage came after a 12:01 a.m deadline, meaning some federal funding technically expired, but the White House budget office said it would not declare a shutdown because the vote was imminent and Biden will sign the bill later Saturday.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, it states that the Senate passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill to prevent a government shutdown but fails to mention that this was only for three-quarters of the federal government and not all departments were funded. Secondly, it quotes Senator Susan Collins stating that she is opposed to shutdowns but then goes on to say that the Senate had scant time by its slow standards to pass the legislation before midnight which would have resulted in a brief shutdown if it lasted into Saturday or Sunday. This contradicts her statement and shows deceptive reporting. Lastly, it states that Republicans were able to prohibit federal funding for UNRWA but fails to mention that this was only for 12 months and not permanently.
The Senate passed a $1.2 trillion spending bill
This would have resulted in a brief shutdown if it lasted into Saturday or Sunday
Fallacies
(85%)
The article contains several fallacies. The author uses a dichotomous depiction of the situation by implying that there are only two possible outcomes: passing the bill or shutting down the government. This is not true as there are many other options available to them. Additionally, the author appeals to authority by quoting various senators and representatives without providing any counterarguments or alternative perspectives. The article also contains inflammatory rhetoric such as 'far-right extremists' and 'testing the speaker’s tenuous grip on his conference', which is not necessary for reporting the news.
Passage came after a 12:01 a.m. deadline, meaning some federal funding technically expired, but the White House budget office said it would not declare a shutdown because the vote was imminent
The bill represents the end of a months-long saga to fund the federal government for fiscal year 2024, which began on Oct. 1, 2023.
Republicans at the negotiating table with White House officials successfully turned provisions to fund the Department of Homeland Security into a broader fight about immigration policy.
Bias
(85%)
The article contains several examples of bias. Firstly, the author uses language that dehumanizes and demonises those who hold opposing views to their own. For example, they describe far-right extremists as 'dog-whistling' and 'celebrating'. This is a clear attempt to discredit these individuals without providing any evidence or context for their actions. Secondly, the author uses loaded language that implies those who hold opposing views are unreasonable or extreme. For example, they describe Republican senators as demanding amendment votes on politically thorny issues and accuse them of sparking 'unrest' in the Senate later in the day and night. This is a clear attempt to discredit these individuals without providing any evidence or context for their actions. Thirdly, the author uses language that implies those who hold opposing views are not acting in good faith. For example, they describe Republican senators as demanding amendment votes before yielding time and allowing a vote to proceed. This is a clear attempt to discredit these individuals without providing any evidence or context for their actions.
The author uses language that dehumanizes and demonises those who hold opposing views
The author uses language that implies those who hold opposing views are not acting in good faith
The author uses loaded language that implies those who hold opposing views are unreasonable or extreme
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jacob Bogage has conflicts of interest on the topics of Senate spending bill, government shutdown, and UNRWA funding. He is a member of the House GOP leadership which may have an impact on immigration policy.
The article mentions that Jacob Bogage is a member of the House GOP leadership.
Author
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
Jacob Bogage has conflicts of interest on the topics of Senate spending bill, government shutdown, and UNRWA funding.
The article also notes that the Senate passed the spending bill, averting a government shutdown. However, it does not disclose any financial ties or personal relationships between Jacob Bogage and any politicians or organizations involved in this process.
The article mentions that Ted Budd (N.C.), Mike Lee (Utah), and Ted Cruz (Tex.) are all Republicans who have been vocal in their opposition to foreign aid cuts. This suggests a potential conflict of interest as they may be more likely to advocate for reducing funding for UNRWA.
