Morgan Rimmer,

Lauren Boebert on Wednesday failed to vote on a major bill that raised the federal debt ceiling. She had vocally opposed the bill, and on Saturday called her failure to vote ‒a protest.‒ But video from Wednesday shows her frantically trying to make it inside the Capitol on time. Rep. Lauren Boebert on Wednesday failed to vote on a bill that raised the federal debt ceiling, a move she has vocally and repeatedly opposed. She didn’t publicly explain why she missed the vote until Saturday, when she tweeted a video of herself in Colorado calling her absence a ‒no-show protest.‒ The only problem with that explanation? A video from a CNN producer on Wednesday night shows the congresswoman frantically running up the steps of the Capitol trying to make it inside before the vote. The bill was passed in the House by a vote of 314-117, with the support of 149 Republicans and 165 Democrats, and 71 Republicans and 46 Democrats opposing. The Senate voted 63-36 to pass the bill, and President Joe Biden signed it into law on Saturday. In her video, Boebert called the Fiscal Responsibility Act of 2023 a ‒crap sandwich.‒ "I certainly let every one of my colleagues and my country know I was against this bill,é Deals cut in the dark are why we’re headed towards $36 trillion in debt. And I refuse to be a part of it.é Watch the video of Boebert trying to rush inside the Capitol the night of the vote below. Boebert’s office didn’t immediately respond to a request for comment. Read the original article on Business Insider

61%

The overall score is a weighted number that takes into account conflict of interest, bias, deception and other practices that undermines the credibility of the source. It is calculated as:
Analysis.OverallConflictOfInterestScore * 0.3F + Analysis.OverallBiasScore * 0.3F + Analysis.DeceptivenessScore * 0.3F + Analysis.ReadabilityScore * 0.1F

A score that takes into consideration the content for flow, interruptions with ads, and overt search engine optimization techniques that makes the content hard to understand

The Daily's Verdict

This author has a mixed reputation for journalistic standards. It is advisable to fact-check, scrutinize for bias, and check for conflicts of interest before relying on the author's reporting.

Bias

50%

Examples:

  • The author also omits information such as Boebert's failure to vote on the bill, her call for protest and her opposition to the bill. This is a form of incomplete reporting that only presents information that supports the author's position while ignoring relevant details.
  • The author also selectively reports information by only quoting Schumer's statement without providing any context or evidence for his claim that Trump pushed the antisemitism trope of dual loyalty. This is a form of distorted reporting that only presents information that supports the author's position while ignoring contradictory evidence.
  • The author also uses emotional appeals such as ‘hateful’, ‘unadulterated antisemitism’ and ‘self-created garbage’ to describe Trump's comments and the bill. This is a form of persuasive rhetoric that attempts to sway readers by appealing to their emotions rather than presenting facts in an objective manner.
  • The author also uses inflammatory language such as ‘dangerous’, ‘antisemitism trope’ and ‘damaging the bonds between US and Israel’ to describe Trump's comments. This is a form of exaggeration that uses hyperbole or overstatement to create a sense of urgency or importance.
  • The author uses biased language such as ‘crap sandwich’ to describe the bill and implies that it was a secret deal made by politicians. This is a form of negative framing that presents information in a way that favors one's own perspective or agenda.

Conflicts of Interest

50%

Examples:

  • The article also does not disclose any sources, references or data behind its claims and statistics. This is a form of weak evidence that undermines the credibility and reliability of the information presented.
  • The article does not provide any information about the author's conflict of interest or potential bias in writing the article. This is a form of lack of disclosure that prevents readers from knowing if the author has any personal or professional stake in the topic.

Contradictions

85%

Examples:

  • The article also contradicts itself by accusing Trump of using the antisemitism trope of dual loyalty but not providing any supporting examples or context for this claim. This is a form of vague language that uses terms without defining them clearly.
  • The article also contradicts itself by calling Schumer's statement a quote while providing no evidence for its validity. This is a form of false attribution that attributes information to someone without verifying their source or accuracy.
  • The article contradicts itself by claiming that Boebert vocally and repeatedly opposed the bill but also failed to vote on it. This is a form of inconsistency or contradiction that occurs when information in an article does not match or align with each other.

Deceptions

80%

Examples:

  • The article also uses deceptive language such as ‘crap sandwich’ and ‘self-created garbage’ to describe the bill in a negative way. This is a form of false advertising that appeals to readers' emotions rather than informing them with accurate information.
  • The article also uses deceptive omission such as not mentioning Boebert's failure to vote, her call for protest and her opposition to the bill. This is a form of hiding information that contradicts or challenges one's position.
  • The article also uses deceptive rhetoric such as ‘hateful’, ‘unadulterated antisemitism’ and ‘damaging the bonds between US and Israel’ to describe Trump's comments in a biased way. This is a form of exaggeration that uses hyperbole or overstatement to create a sense of urgency or importance.
  • The article uses deceptive practices such as emotional manipulation, selective reporting, distorted reporting and incomplete reporting to present information in a way that favors one's own perspective or agenda. This is a form of dishonesty that misleads readers by omitting, exaggerating or twisting facts.

Recent Articles

Former President Donald Trump's Comments on Jewish Voters Spark Backlash from Congressional Leaders

Former President Donald Trump's Comments on Jewish Voters Spark Backlash from Congressional Leaders

Broke On: Tuesday, 19 March 2024 Former President Donald Trump's comments that any Jewish person who votes for Democrats hates their religion were met with a swift and fierce backlash from incensed Jewish Democrats in Congress. Senate Majority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.) criticized the remarks as unadulterated antisemitism, accusing Trump of using Israel as a political wedge to further damage his relationship with Jewish voters.