Misinfo Radar
Signals worth a closer look: weak sources, fact-checks, state media, copy-paste campaigns.
10-Year "Harassment"/"Stalking" Sentence for Repeatedly Criticizing Police Detective Violated First Amendment, Amicus Brief Argues
Right 100%100%
Attention level: Low (1 source)
- Headline mismatch 1 of 1 confidence: low
Articles whose headline says something its own description does not.
- ReasonTV: 10-Year "Harassment"/"Stalking" Sentence for Repeatedly Criticizing Police Detective Violated First Amendment, Amicus Brief Argues
I was delighted to sign on to this brief in State v. McMenamy (Mo. Ct. App.) just filed by the…
- ReasonTV: 10-Year "Harassment"/"Stalking" Sentence for Repeatedly Criticizing Police Detective Violated First Amendment, Amicus Brief Argues
- Thin coverage 1 confidence: medium Only one or two outlets report this, and none of them rated high for reliability.
Every outlet on this story
| Outlet | Lean | Reliability | Country | Articles |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| ReasonTV | Leans right | 70 Mostly factual | US | 1 |
How this was worked out
The radar does not decide what is true. It lists signals that deserve a closer look, each with its evidence: who covers the story and how they are rated, matching fact-checks, state media, copy-paste campaigns, and headlines that are sensational or do not match their own description.
How INDB scores stories · Data: stories INDB grouped from the outlets on the sources page.