Tension erupts during House midterm debate as Lawler fact-checks New York Democrat opponent on immigration
2 of 2 checks found something
Flags are about wording, sourcing and context, not whether it’s true or which side is right. How we check
In the writer’s own words.
Plus 2 paragraphs where people quoted use charged words. Shown, not counted.
Tap a technique to see where it’s used.
What these techniques mean
SourcesOne-sided: 2 attributed statements, all US
- Conley · Civilians and eyewitnesses
- Lawler · Civilians and eyewitnesses
The article sources only two individuals (Conley and Lawler), both appearing to be US political figures discussing immigration policy. There is no representation from opposing viewpoints, immigrant advocacy organizations, law enforcement perspectives with differing views, or independent analysts. The sourcing is narrowly limited to two speakers without counterbalancing perspectives.
The passages the findings rest on
underlined: technique found; pick one to highlight its words dashed edge: in a quote, not counted tap a technique for why
11 paragraphs with no finding
“The illegal immigrant accused of killing her” … “Chicago sanctuary laws prevent local law enforcement from handing him over to ICE”
↓Loaded Language · “The illegal immigrant accused of killing her”Why ›
The label 'illegal immigrant' paired with the killing frames the suspect through his immigration status rather than neutral terms.Appeal to Fear · “Chicago sanctuary laws prevent local law enforcement from handing him over to ICE”Why ›
A single violent case is linked to sanctuary laws, implying they leave dangerous people free to harm others.1 paragraph with no finding
Loaded Language · “an atrocious crime”Why ›
The emotionally charged adjective 'atrocious' is used to provoke outrage about the death rather than convey specific facts.10 paragraphs with no finding
“Are you against our small businesses in the Hudson Valley being able to expense their plant, property and equipment and hire more people?”
↑Black-and-White Fallacy · “Are you against our small businesses in the Hudson Valley being able to expense their plant, property and equipment and hire more people?”Why ›
The rhetorical question frames any criticism of the tax bill as simply being against small businesses and hiring, leaving no room for other objections4 paragraphs with no finding
Only the words each finding rests on are shown here. Read the original ↗ · Open the full analysis →
Analyzed 2026-10-15 04:07 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 →