White House Provides 'enormous' evidence of voter fraud

Oscar's picture
Basic Information

Common Top Level Domain (TLD): 


Dateline or Post Date: 

Fri Apr 28 2017
Website Purpose

About Us Summary: 

About Us link just takes you to the homepage. There is no real About Us page

Vertical Tabs

Registrant Name: 

c/o WHOIStrustee.com Limited

Registrant Company: 

Registrant of presstv.com

Registrant State: 


Registrant Country Code: 


Registrant Phone: 


Registrant Email: 

Overall Analysis

Trust Markers: 

It's a real story, can find the story on other sites.

Mistrust Markers: 

The site conveniently leaves out the actual "evidence." If you search the story on other sites, they say that the people involved in this story have fake claims and provide no evidence. The title is just a clickbait title.

Trust Rank (1 = high mistrust, 5 = high trust): 


Reason for Trust Rank: 

The title says that the White House provided enormous evidence of voter fraud, but there's no actual evidence in the story. No links to other sources. It seems to be pushing a certain viewpoint. It is a real story but leaves out details to push a certain viewpoint. Some mistrust.




Maddie's picture

Seems like it's summering a story without any real evidence, and exaggeration details to push a certain agenda, I'd agree that it's about a 2 since it is based off a story you can find other places, but the article itself shows no proof or even sources.


No votes yet

I agree with all your points.

Isaac's picture

I agree with all your points. I would also add that there is no author to this post and the about us link leads nowhere. I wouldn't rate this article a 1 because the website seems to be organized fairly professionally, and has very minimal ads, but this isn't a source that I would trust.


No votes yet

I agree

Barnabas's picture

Your points were shown through my analysis on your article, however like Isaac Blodgett said ^^^ adding that there is no author would be helpful as well for our friendly FakeNews app users. Definitely had a hard time trusting the article, but it did seem like it was done by some sort of expert, in my opinion it gave some bias views which are slightly on the side of a not trustworthy site.


No votes yet