Trump offering early access to online posts in move seen as corruption

Open the full analysis → Read the original article at The Guardian (US) →

Flags are about wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check

Wording

10%of the article’s sentences use a rhetorical technique

Tap a technique to see where it’s used.

What these techniques mean

Loaded Language Emotionally charged words that push a reaction instead of giving information.Show the first one ↓

Appeal to Prejudice Leaning on the reader’s existing dislike of a group.Show the first one ↓

ClaimsCheck the factual claims in this article →

What the model flagged

underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words tap a technique for why

“outrageous abuse” … “personal benefit” … “undermines”

↓

Loaded Language · “outrageous abuse”, “personal benefit”, “undermines”Why ›

Emotionally charged words are used to provoke outrage rather than convey neutral facts.

“everyday investors” … “Wall Street and other wealthy insiders”

↑

Appeal to Prejudice · “everyday investors”, “Wall Street and other wealthy insiders”Why ›

Contrasts 'everyday investors' as the in-group being harmed against 'Wall Street and other wealthy insiders' as the out-group being enriched, exploiting class-based identity.

Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →

↑ Back to the results

Analyzed 2026-08-01 18:16 UTC. Articles are sometimes updated after publication — if a quote here isn't in the current version, the piece has changed since.

Analyzed automatically with Semblen's fine-tuned model. These are rhetorical techniques, not political tilt — and finding one is not a claim that the article is false. Findings include language the outlet is quoting rather than asserting: we flag techniques wherever they appear, so check each quote against the original. The model has known false positives on strong-but-legitimate language, so treat each finding as a prompt to read closely, not a verdict. How articles are chosen →