Author Aaron Blake treads on eggshells throughout the whole article: rightfully so. The argument is so delicate that being accused of opinion and bias is an accusation just around the corner. Overall by being so careful, the author manages to avoid useless attacks on President Trump, his new TV and the term real news, opting for a more informative overview of the situation and the statements given by Kayleigh McEnany.

The author, clearly has biased intentions, yet manages to hold on to credibility by citing reputable polls and reports. The author does make fun of Trump TV and the "fake news" "real news" rhetoric currently being thrown around. With the claims made by the Trump TV host, Aaron Blake points out that the economic success we are currently experiencing is not because of a major change brought on by Trump but merely residual effects of Obama's success with a potentially small factor being Trumps policies.

Everything reported in this article is true and substantiated by other investigative reporting.

A lot of unnecessary verbiage in this article. For example, what was the point of adding "But like Trump, McEnany takes it to far"? While McEnany did use subjective words in her segment, Aaron Blake is being subjective himself in his rebuttal. Just look at his articles, not a single one isn't a anti-trump hit piece. It's hard to take anything he says seriously when he spends 40 hours a week putting out anti-trump propaganda.

The author did a great job in providing research to support his analytical breakdown of Sunday's "real news" segment. The title is definitely clickbait, but the article is well written to stand on it's own after the reader dives in

Most TRUSTED media have a very difficult time these days not appearing totally biased. This article tries to be non-biased by pointing out some (minor) truths presented in the Trump "real News". We all know its a total propaganda platform, so hard to believe anything the program says.

There were many times when author Aaron Blake could have gone on the attack, but his overall approach to debunking Trump Tower's "Real News" segment seemed reasonable and fair. He even pointed out the areas where Trump supporters have a strong case and made sure to debunk other claims with evidence and figures from reliable sources. I was expecting a political agenda or hit piece, and although he came close at times, overall I found this article trustworthy. The headline was misleading because the author does very little to dive into what's going on with Trump TV and their future plans, or why they should be considered propaganda.

As many reviews highlight, this article addresses a very touchy subject and has some difficulty maintaining its objective presentation. The author does well in identifying credible sources to back up his claims about some false or partially false statements made by McEnany; however, it is such a charged topic, it is difficult to discern whether or not it is biased. The sources he provided were credible, yet the Washington Post - identified as a liberal news outlet by journalists at the Pew Research Center - constitutes five of his 11 references. Nevertheless, the claims he made were supported by credible sources and the story he writes is accurate, albeit politically directed.

Without discussing the ethics of the contents of this article, this is still an article with a political agenda. This authors job seems to be only to write anti-Trump articles. The way he breaks down everything that's wrong with the other media source, it's more like he's trying to be a fact-checker when he isn't in a good position to do so.

Any time you put a "label" on news you are biasing it. Although I don't mind people expressing their opinion it should be clearly labeled as such. There are generally enough facts at there to support whatever opinion someone wishes to "share". I always appreciate when an author gives me the facts and let's me draw my own conclusion. In this case the author drew on several sources for the facts but is it telling the whole story? I don't know. But I would generally tend to believe it.

To be fair, I think this is a very well supported opinion piece, but an opinion piece none the less. There is a clear political bent to the article and a point being made. Facts are being used to support a particular angle. The author uses great sources to support his argument, and does not lie. I think he is trying to be as neutral as possible.

Aaron Blake teeters very close to being biased throughout this article but never crosses over until the last paragraph (when he tries to draw the comparison of real and fake news....). The headline, although it feels true to the video, is not descriptive for the rest of the article. The data points expressed by Kayleigh McEnany's video are confirmed by Aaron himself. The credit, however, does seem to be misplaced. Aaron links to a fellow Washington Post colleague only. This article, in my opinion, didn't cross the biased boundary but is very, very close and could be seen as such.

I would also add that this is an opinion based article. Although I do not agree with the Phrump administration, this is a biased article. I don't know how you would defend a piece of turf like Trump, but the writer did not even try. With that said, I can't wait until we put this administration behind us, and write on history books one of the biggest mistakes of human history.

Not a bad look at an insanely biased subject.