House Democrats plan vast oversight of Trump administration

Credibility rates San Diego Union-Tribune, which carries this article. The other scores rate the article itself. San Diego Union-Tribune's published outlet score.

The story provides specific examples and direct quotations from several Democratic lawmakers, but most of its sourcing comes from the side proposing the investigations. It gives little response from the administration or Republicans beyond noting that the White House may resist inquiries.

The article includes several lawmakers’ perspectives and notes that the administration may resist investigations, but it does not present a substantive response from the administration or congressional Republicans to the allegations and plans.

• ▸Source diversity — Several Democratic lawmakers are quoted, but opposing political perspectives are largely absent.
• ▸Counterarguments presented — The article anticipates administration resistance but does not include a direct response.
• ▸Loaded language — Strong phrases about corruption are attributed to lawmakers rather than adopted as the article’s own voice.
• ▸Omitted context — The prospective agenda is described in detail, while the subjects of the proposed inquiries have little opportunity to respond in the story.

The article reports Democratic plans and allegations in mostly descriptive language, with claims attributed to lawmakers. Its emphasis is on the prospective Democratic oversight agenda, but it does not use conspicuously partisan language.

• ▸Language tone — The prose is generally neutral and attributes allegations and intentions to their speakers.
• ▸Framing — The story focuses on Democratic plans, as indicated by its subject, without overtly endorsing them.
• ▸Source selection — Democratic lawmakers provide most of the quoted views; administration or Republican perspectives are limited.