FACT CHECK: Spliced video misrepresents Chel Diokno statement on VP Sara’s financial records
An article from Rappler investigates a viral video that allegedly misrepresented the statement of Akbayan Representative and public prosecutor Chel Diokno during Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. The video, which has been shared widely on Facebook, appears to show Diokno admitting that the House prosecution was 'taking a chance' to obtain evidence against Duterte. However, the article reveals that the video had been spliced to alter the context of Diokno's remarks. According to the Senate's official records and the livestream of the trial, Diokno was clarifying that the prosecution's request for Duterte's financial records was not a 'fishing expedition,' as there was sufficient cause to proceed with the case. The article highlights that key parts of Diokno's original statement were removed from the spliced video to create a misleading impression. Diokno himself addressed the issue in a Facebook post, refuting the altered narrative.
Go to the primary sources (7)
The official sources this coverage is built on. Read them directly to bypass framing.
A former LandBank branch manager, Nenita Camposano, testified during the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte, describing the Department of Education's (DepEd) large cash withdrawal of P37.5 million as 'unusual.' This testimony comes amid ongoing scrutiny of alleged misuse of a confidential fund (CF) within Duterte's office. When questioned by Senator-judge Imee Marcos, Camposano clarified that while large withdrawals are common for both private and public clients at LandBank, the specific amount withdrawn by DepEd was unusually high for the agency. Earlier, she had stated that such withdrawals were regular occurrences, leading to confusion over whether her testimony implied approval or concern. This follows another LandBank employee, Violeta Constantino, who also noted the transaction was unusual. The testimony is part of the Senate's examination of allegations of financial misconduct linked to Duterte.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the conflicting interpretations of Camposano's testimony. It does not take a clear ideological stance on the impeachment proceedings or the allegations against Duterte. The framing remains neutral, focusing on the legal process and the ambiguity surrounding
Why factuality (95): The article accurately reports that Nenita Camposano described the P37.5 million cash withdrawals by DepEd under Sara Duterte as 'unusual' during her testimony in the impeachment trial. It provides specific details such as the amount, the context of the impeachment trial, and the questioning by Sena
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a relatively neutral tone, presenting facts from the impeachment trial without overtly favoring any party. However, the headline uses the word 'also' implying prior testimony, which may slightly frame the narrative. The article avoids strong emotive language but focuses on repo
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 954 days ago
Rappler fact-checked a viral social media claim that Cagayan de Oro 1st District Representative Lordan Suan criticized Vice President Sara Duterte for visiting a hospital during an earthquake relief effort. The claim included a fabricated quote suggesting that such visits should be the President’s responsibility. Suan’s office denied the claim, stating he had never made such a statement. The false quote was similar to another debunked claim previously attributed to Presidential Communications Office Undersecretary Claire Castro. The image used in the post was taken from Duterte’s actual visit to a field hospital in Sarangani in June 2026. Additionally, Suan is part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment trial against Duterte, which is now in its fourth week.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a fact-check on a specific claim involving a politician and a public figure, providing balanced information by including both the claim and the denial from Suan’s office. It does not exhibit clear bias toward either side, focusing on verifying the accuracy of the statement and澄清
Why factuality (90): This article thoroughly investigates a false quote attributed to Lordan Suan, confirming through multiple sources that the quote was fabricated. It provides clear evidence of the misinformation and explains how it spread online. The content aligns closely with the facts and does not introduce any un
Why objectivity (95): The article is highly objective, presenting the findings without emotional language or personal opinion. It clearly distinguishes between the false claim and the verified reality, maintaining a balanced and informative tone throughout.
RapplerIndependentProgressiveFactual 90Objective 955 days ago
The article reports that two bank officials testified that the encashment of large funds by Vice President Sara Duterte's office was 'unusual.' This testimony comes amid ongoing scrutiny of her conduct, including her impeachment proceedings. The article also mentions other news items, such as Senator Pia Cayetano sharing a potentially misleading video, legal actions against individuals linked to a fugitive, and a senator submitting evidence regarding flood control projects. Additionally, it notes a tennis victory by Filipina player Alex Eala.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights the unusual financial activity of Vice President Sara Duterte, which is part of broader political scrutiny and potential impeachment efforts. While the focus is on the bank officials' testimony, the context suggests a critical stance toward Duterte's administration, aligning a
Why factuality (90): The article accurately reports on the spliced video controversy involving Chel Diokno and Senator-judge Pia Cayetano, aligning closely with the primary source documents. It clearly identifies the altered nature of the video and explains the context, ensuring fidelity to the facts presented in the pr
Why objectivity (95): The article maintains a high degree of neutrality, presenting the facts without editorializing or showing favoritism toward either side. It clearly distinguishes between the original statement and the altered version, avoiding any biased interpretation.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 90Objective 955 days ago
An article from Rappler investigates a viral video that allegedly misrepresented the statement of Akbayan Representative and public prosecutor Chel Diokno during Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial. The video, which has been shared widely on Facebook, appears to show Diokno admitting that the House prosecution was 'taking a chance' to obtain evidence against Duterte. However, the article reveals that the video had been spliced to alter the context of Diokno's remarks. According to the Senate's official records and the livestream of the trial, Diokno was clarifying that the prosecution's request for Duterte's financial records was not a 'fishing expedition,' as there was sufficient cause to proceed with the case. The article highlights that key parts of Diokno's original statement were removed from the spliced video to create a misleading impression. Diokno himself addressed the issue in a Facebook post, refuting the altered narrative.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced account of the controversy surrounding the spliced video, citing both the altered version and the original statement from the Senate's records. It does not take a clear ideological stance but rather focuses on verifying the accuracy of the claims made in the video. As
Why factuality (90): The article accurately describes the prosecution's proposal to alternate with the defense on evidence presentation, referencing the primary source documents. It provides context and quotes from the prosecution's manifest, maintaining alignment with the factual details from the primary sources.
Why objectivity (95): The article presents the situation objectively, discussing the proposal without taking sides or using emotionally charged language. It focuses on the procedural aspects of the trial, ensuring a balanced perspective.
A former branch manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, Nenita Camposano, stated that the P37.5 million withdrawals made by the Department of Education during Vice President Sara Duterte’s tenure were 'unusual.' These withdrawals raised questions about their legitimacy and purpose, potentially indicating irregularities in financial transactions involving the education department.
Bias read (Progressive): The article highlights concerns over unusual financial transactions involving a high-ranking official (Vice President Sara Duterte), which implies scrutiny of her administration's conduct. The framing suggests potential impropriety without explicitly accusing any party, but the focus on questioning
Why factuality (90): The article accurately conveys that Nenita Camposano stated the P37.5 million withdrawals by DepEd under Sara Duterte were 'unusual.' It mentions the context of the impeachment trial and identifies Camposano as a former Land Bank branch manager. While less detailed than the first article, it aligns
Why objectivity (80): The article presents the information in a straightforward manner, focusing on the statement made by Camposano. However, the headline uses the phrase 'WATCH: Ex-bank manager says...' which may imply a more dramatic or sensational angle compared to the first article. This slight framing could affect n
Several lawmakers in the Philippines claimed that Manases Carpio, the husband of Vice President Sara Duterte, has used his complaints against House of Representatives members involved in impeachment proceedings as a 'delaying tactic.' The lawmakers, including ACT Teachers party-list Representative Antonio Tinio and Kabataan party-list Representative Renee Co, expressed this view while responding to the complaints. The allegations suggest that the legal actions may be intended to slow down the impeachment process rather than address substantive issues. This perspective highlights ongoing tensions within the legislative body regarding the legitimacy and purpose of such legal challenges.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames Manases Carpio's legal actions as a 'delaying tactic,' implying a negative assessment of his motives. This characterization suggests a right-leaning perspective that views the legal challenges as obstructive rather than legitimate. The focus on delaying tactics implies skepticism,
Why factuality (85): The article states that the defense team chose to skip the cross-examination of a witness to avoid prolonging the proceedings. This aligns with the general understanding of legal strategies in trials and is consistent with the context provided in the primary source materials.
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral, explaining the defense team's strategic choice without implying approval or criticism. It presents the rationale behind their decision in an objective manner.
Ferdinand Alexander Marcos, the House of Representatives Majority Leader in the Philippines, stated that the ongoing impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte will not interfere with the House's discussions on the 2027 national budget. He emphasized that the House can proceed with its duties as the impeachment proceedings are not being conducted by them. This statement comes amid political tensions surrounding Duterte's potential removal from office due to alleged misconduct. The situation highlights the separation of powers within the Philippine government, where different branches handle distinct responsibilities.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a neutral report on a political figure's statement regarding the impact of an impeachment trial on legislative processes. There is no evident bias in the framing, word choice, or emphasis. The content does not favor any particular political side but rather reports on the stance,
Why factuality (85): The article discusses the House of Representatives' belief that the impeachment trial of VP Sara Duterte will not affect the budget deliberations. This aligns with the general context of the impeachment trial but lacks specific details from the primary source. Since the primary source doesn't discus
Why objectivity (90): The article remains neutral in tone, presenting the perspective of House Majority Leader Ferdinand Alexander Marcos without taking sides or using emotionally charged language. It simply reports the position taken by the leader regarding the impact of the impeachment trial on budget discussions.
The House of Representatives, led by Deputy Speaker Jefferson Khonghun, has stated it is prepared to manage both Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial and upcoming discussions on the 2027 budget. Khonghun emphasized that teams are assigned to different responsibilities, ensuring legislative duties continue despite the ongoing trial. The trial is expected to last several months and overlaps with the submission of the proposed 2027 budget, which aims for a P7.2-trillion spending plan. Concerns exist that the trial might disrupt the House's focus during budget season, a time typically involving extensive committee reviews.
Bias read (Center): The article presents information about the House's preparedness without overtly favoring any political side. It reports on the administrative arrangements and potential challenges without taking a clear ideological stance. While the impeachment trial and budget discussions are politically sensitive,
Why factuality (85): The article reports on statements made by House Deputy Speaker Jefferson Khonghun regarding the House's readiness to handle Vice President Duterte's impeachment trial and the 2027 budget discussions. It aligns with the cross-source consensus that these events are scheduled around the SONA. However,
Why objectivity (90): The article presents the information in a neutral tone, focusing on the official statements and the procedural aspects of the House's operations. There is no evident bias or emotional language, maintaining an objective stance.
Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team has opted not to conduct a cross-examination of one of the prosecution's witnesses during her impeachment trial. The decision was made to prevent the proceedings from being unnecessarily extended and to avoid engaging in what they described as 'petty' questioning. This move comes amid ongoing legal challenges against Duterte, who faces multiple charges related to alleged abuses of power. The impeachment process is part of a broader political struggle within the Philippines, reflecting tensions between different factions of the ruling coalition. By choosing not to challenge this witness, the defense aims to streamline the trial and focus on more critical aspects of the case.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the defense team's reasoning for skipping the cross-examination without taking a stance on whether their decision is justified or biased. It reports the statement objectively, without apparent favoritism toward either side of the impeachment trial.
Why factuality (85): The article mentions that the prosecution believes the testimony of LandBank officials supports the claims of Ramil Madriaga. While the primary source does not include this specific analysis, it is a logical conclusion based on the nature of the testimonies and the overall trial context.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the prosecution's view without bias, stating their belief in the support of the testimonies without taking a stance on the validity of those claims.
The prosecution team involved in the impeachment trial of Philippine Vice President Sara Duterte stated that the testimonies of two former Land Bank of the Philippines executives supported the allegations made by Ramil Madriaga, who was previously believed to be a close associate of Duterte. The comments were made during a press briefing following the latest session of the impeachment proceedings. The testimonies appear to provide additional evidence against Duterte, potentially strengthening the case brought forward by the prosecution.
Bias read (Progressive): The article discusses the impeachment trial of a high-ranking political figure, which is inherently politically charged. The framing suggests support for the prosecution's narrative, implying a potential bias toward the opposing side in the political spectrum. The emphasis on the testimonies bolster
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Violeta Constantino testified about the unusual nature of the P500 million withdrawal. This aligns with the primary source material, which includes similar testimonies regarding the large withdrawals.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the testimony in a neutral manner, focusing on the factual aspects of the withdrawal without introducing bias or emotional language.
Violeta Constantino, a former branch manager of the Land Bank of the Philippines, testified during the 10th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial that a P500 million cash withdrawal made by the Office of the Vice President was 'unusual.' This testimony appears to be part of the ongoing legal proceedings against Duterte, focusing on potential financial improprieties related to her office.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a factual account of a testimony provided during an impeachment trial involving a high-ranking official. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or editorializing. The framing remains neutral, simply relaying the statement made by the former bank manager
Why factuality (85): The article accurately reports that Violeta Constantino testified about having never seen a P500 million withdrawal. This is consistent with the primary source material, which includes similar testimonies regarding the large withdrawals.
Why objectivity (85): The article presents the testimony in a neutral manner, focusing on the factual aspects of the withdrawal without introducing bias or emotional language.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 85Objective 805 days ago
During the 10th day of Vice President Sara Duterte's impeachment trial, her defense team largely avoided cross-examining witnesses regarding the alleged unusual withdrawal of P500 million from the Office of the Vice President (OVP) account at Land Bank of the Philippines. Defense counsel Michael Poa stated that there were no questionable or damaging details in the testimonies of the witnesses, who identified the cheques but did not raise concerns about their legitimacy. The prosecution focused on allegations of misuse of confidential funds, citing the 'unusual' nature of the withdrawals. However, the defense argued that the term 'unusual' was merely the opinion of bank staff and not indicative of suspicious activity. According to the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC) guidelines, such large transactions should be reported, but the defense claimed the validity of the encashments was not under dispute.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the defense and prosecution perspectives without overtly favoring either side. It includes direct quotes from both the defense and prosecution, providing balanced coverage of the impeachment trial. There is no evident bias in the language used or the selection of sources.
Why factuality (85): This article discusses the legal strategy of Vice President Sara Duterte's defense team during an impeachment trial, focusing on their decision not to cross-examine witnesses regarding a financial matter. It does not reference the AMLC guidelines or the GoTRACS regulations, so there is no direct com
Why objectivity (80): The tone remains neutral, presenting the defense team's reasoning without overt bias. While the article highlights the legal strategy, it avoids taking sides or expressing strong opinions about the case itself.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that Vice President Sara Duterte's trust and performance ratings have declined according to a recent Octa Research survey, reflecting public dissatisfaction with her handling of national issues. The Palace, representing President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., stated that the drop indicates Filipinos recognize Duterte's lack of contribution to solving pressing problems like inflation and rising fuel prices. The Palace press officer emphasized that the impeachment trial against Duterte, which began in July 2026, is likely the main reason for the decline, as it received significant media attention. While Duterte still holds strong support in Mindanao, her ratings have fallen below the majority level for the first time since late 2024. Octa Research suggested that the impeachment proceedings, along with perceptions of governance and the absence of a robust social safety net, could explain the decline.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the decline in Sara Duterte's ratings as evidence of her lack of contribution to national issues and emphasizes the legitimacy of the impeachment trial, aligning with the Palace's narrative. It highlights criticism of Duterte's actions and omits perspectives that might balance the
Why factuality (85): The article reports on a survey conducted by Octa Research, which tracks Vice President Sara Duterte's trust and performance ratings. It cites specific numbers showing a decline from 55% to 47% in trust and from 50% to 45% in performance. The Palace spokesperson attributes this decline to public dis
Why objectivity (70): The article frames the decline in ratings as reflecting public dissatisfaction and criticizes Duterte's approach as 'criticizing without offering solutions.' This language suggests a political stance, particularly aligning with the Palace's position. The tone leans toward supporting the administrati
The trial of Vice President Sara Duterte entered its 10th day with the prosecution set to present its first witness regarding her alleged misuse of P612.5 million in confidential funds. The first witness, Violeta Constantino, a former Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) branch manager, will testify about transactions involving Duterte's special disbursing officer, Gina Acosta, who allegedly withdrew P125 million from December 2022 to September 2023. Another former LBP branch manager, Nenita Camposano, will follow with testimony about P32.5 million withdrawals linked to Duterte's former SDO in 2023. The scheduling of these testimonies was delayed due to procedural requests and the State of the Nation Address by President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. The prosecution requested the court to address each impeachment article sequentially, but the defense opposed this change, and the court proceeded with Article I.
Bias read (Center): The article provides a balanced account of the proceedings, detailing both the prosecution's plans and the defense's opposition to changes in the trial order. It does not exhibit overtly biased language, one-sided sourcing, or omissions that would indicate a clear ideological lean. The focus is on陈述
Why factuality (80): The article covers the upcoming presentation of witnesses concerning the misuse of confidential funds. While the primary source does not provide detailed information about these witnesses or the specific amounts mentioned, the general topic is consistent with the ongoing trial. The article accuratel
Why objectivity (85): The article maintains a balanced approach, reporting on the planned testimonies without showing favoritism towards either the prosecution or the defense. It uses straightforward language and avoids subjective commentary.
The Philippine Daily Inquirer reports that the House prosecution panel plans to present testimony from LandBank officials regarding the handling of P612.5 million in confidential funds allegedly misused by Vice President Sara Duterte. The prosecution, led by House prosecutor Terry Ridon, intends to begin this phase of the impeachment proceedings on July 29, following the State of the Nation Address. Testimonies will include former LandBank branch managers Violeta Constantino and Nenita Camposano, who are expected to provide information on the processing and documentation of the funds. The case focuses on allegations of misuse during Duterte's tenure as Vice President and Education secretary, citing irregularities in fund disbursement and questionable recipient identifications. This marks a shift from previous evidence presented against Duterte's alleged threats toward political figures.
Bias read (Progressive): The article frames the impeachment proceedings as a legitimate legal process targeting Vice President Duterte, emphasizing the seriousness of the charges and the involvement of official sources like LandBank officials. While the tone remains objective, the focus on the prosecution's actions and the
Why factuality (80): The article covers the resumption of the trial and the planned presentation of evidence, which aligns with the primary source. It mentions the ethics complaint against Cayetano, providing relevant background.
Why objectivity (75): The article gives more attention to the prosecution's plans, possibly indicating a slight pro-prosecution tilt. It does not equally highlight the defense's arguments or procedural challenges.
Vice President Sara Duterte of the Philippines dismissed rumors of her resignation during an impeachment trial related to allegations of confidential fund misuse, unexplained wealth, and grave threat. She stated that resigning would betray the 32.2 million voters who supported her, emphasizing her commitment to her position. Duterte challenged President Ferdinand Marcos Jr., telling him he could remove her if he wished. Her defense team also denied any discussions about resignation, reinforcing her stance. The impeachment process continued as the Senate impeachment court concluded reviewing evidence for Article IV.
Bias read (Center): While the article covers a politically sensitive impeachment proceeding involving high-profile figures, the framing remains balanced. Duterte's statements are presented objectively without overtly positive or negative language. The article does not show clear ideological leaning toward either side,雖
Why factuality (80): The article accurately reports on Senator-judge Pia Cayetano's social media post and the response from the House prosecution spokesperson. It provides context about the implications of the post and the concerns raised, aligning with the primary source document.
Why objectivity (65): While the article is factual, it carries a slightly critical tone toward Senator-judge Cayetano, suggesting potential bias. The focus on the controversy surrounding her post leans toward a particular viewpoint.
RapplerIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 854 days ago
This article provides a recap of the first three weeks of the impeachment trial of Vice President Sara Duterte in the Philippines. It highlights key developments such as 'Operation Romanov' and the issuance of subpoenas for her financial records. The article notes public interest in the proceedings and mentions the ongoing debates between prosecution and defense lawyers during witness testimonies and cross-examinations, which have raised more questions than definitive answers.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a balanced overview of the impeachment trial without overtly favoring either side. It reports on both the procedural aspects (subpoenas, legal arguments) and public reaction, without taking a clear stance on the merits of the case itself. There is no strong ideological framing,
Why factuality (75): The article discusses general themes from the first three weeks of the trial, such as 'Operation Romanov' and subpoenas, but lacks specific details from the primary source documents dated July 21, 2026. While it mentions witness presentations and debates, it doesn't reference specific events like NB
Why objectivity (85): The article presents information neutrally, summarizing public interest points and legal debates without overt bias. It avoids strong language or subjective commentary, focusing on what occurred during the trial rather than taking sides.
GMA News OnlineIndependentCenterFactual 75Objective 706 days ago
Senator Leila de Lima has stated that the Senate court should find ways for her and Senator Jinggoy Estrada to participate in the impeachment trial of former President Rodrigo Duterte's daughter, Sara Duterte. De Lima emphasized the importance of their involvement in the proceedings, suggesting that they should be allowed to take part despite any procedural challenges.
Bias read (Center): The article presents a statement from Senator Leila de Lima regarding her desire to participate in the impeachment trial of Sara Duterte. The content does not exhibit clear bias toward either side of the political spectrum, focusing on the senator's request rather than endorsing or criticizing any立场
Why factuality (75): The article accurately reports Vice President Duterte's denial of resignation and her comments on the impeachment trial. It includes quotes from her and her defense team, aligning with the primary source document's timeline and content.
Why objectivity (70): The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting Duterte's statements without apparent bias. It reports on her position and the defense's stance without injecting personal opinions.
Claire Castro, a palace press officer, responded to criticism from Davao City Mayor Sebastian 'Baste' Duterte regarding the Marcos administration's focus on impeaching Vice President Sara Duterte. Castro accused Duterte of prioritizing political activities over assisting Davao residents affected by recent flooding. She denied any involvement of President Ferdinand Marcos Jr. in the impeachment process, stating it was solely a congressional matter. Duterte claimed the administration is focused on removing his sister from power to secure their own candidate for the 2028 election. Castro further dismissed Duterte's allegations of intimidation through legal action, asserting that charges are based on evidence.
Bias read (Conservative): The article frames the situation in favor of the Marcos administration, emphasizing their commitment to evidence-based actions and rejecting allegations of political motivation. It portrays Duterte's criticisms as politically motivated and highlights the administration's stance on the impeachment of
Why factuality (75): This article accurately reports on House prosecutor Terry Ridon's comments regarding the subpoenaed records of Vice President Duterte and her husband. It provides detailed information about the purpose of the subpoena and aligns with the primary source document. The article cites Ridon directly and
Why objectivity (70): The article is factual and objective, presenting the information without emotional language or bias. It clearly explains the legal and procedural context of the subpoena.
House prosecutor Terry Ridon announced that subpoenaed bank and tax records of Vice President Sara Duterte and her husband, Manases Carpio, will be used to assess whether their declared wealth aligns with their documented income and financial activities. The investigation focuses on comparing three data sets: the couple's post-tax income, Duterte's 2024 Statement of Assets, Liabilities and Net Worth (SALN) declaring P88.5 million, and the P6.7 billion in financial transactions reported by the Anti-Money Laundering Council (AMLC). Ridon emphasized that discrepancies between these figures could suggest unexplained wealth, and the bank records would validate the AMLC's findings by revealing underlying transactions. The inquiry aims to determine if Duterte's assets are legally sourced and consistent with her reported income.
Bias read (Center): The article presents the legal process and procedural justification for examining financial records, without overtly criticizing or praising Vice President Duterte. It emphasizes the role of official authorities (House prosecutor, AMLC) and provides factual context about the financial investigation.
Why factuality (75): This article accurately reports on the advocacy group Pinoy Aksyon's reaction to the subpoena of Duterte's records. It includes direct quotes from the group's chairperson and aligns with the primary source document. The article provides context about the importance of the documents in the impeachmen
Why objectivity (70): The article is neutral in tone, presenting the group's perspective without taking a partisan stance. It allows readers to understand the rationale behind the subpoena without injecting personal opinion.
How each side covered it
The same event, grouped by the political lean of the outlets covering it.
progressive
center
conservative
★
How each side covered it
Support independent, bias-aware news and unlock the social pulse, community voting, and every other Supporter feature.
PH
