TITLE: Sarah Sanders Is on a Roll — Now She’s Caught the NYT, Red-Handed, Saying Nice Things About Trump
SENTENCE 1: -Washington Post on the booming @realDonaldTrump economy — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 13, 2018  And on Sunday morning, she delivered similar praise to The New York Times:  “The American economy hasn’t experienced this kind of fierce competition for workers since the late 1990s and early 2000s, the last time the unemployment rate was this low.” -NY Times  Even for the critics it's becoming harder to deny the success of year one of Trump presidency — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 14, 2018  Who’s next?
SENTENCE 2: Worst prediction for the year: pic.twitter.com/b6PGzp48zM — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) December 29, 2017  Here is the official audio showing WSJ misquoting @POTUS pic.twitter.com/wVwoafYkHg — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 14, 2018  Here is the official audio showing WSJ misquoting @POTUS pic.twitter.com/wVwoafYkHg — Sarah Sanders (@PressSec) January 14, 2018  We first contacted the WSJ Friday morning and asked for a correction.
SENTENCE 3: On Saturday, she praised The Washington Post for recognizing the Trump economy:  "The United States suddenly finds itself at a place where almost everyone who wants a job can find one…raising the prospect of higher wages."

Bias label: slightly
Annotator rationales:
If the text labels a prediction as the 'worst,' then it risks using emotionally charged language to discredit opposing viewpoints without engaging in constructive dialogue.
If the text uses subjective language like 'booming' to describe the economy, then it risks overstating its success and dismissing legitimate criticisms without providing balanced evidence.
If the text implies that critics are being unreasonable or biased in their assessments, then it risks framing dissenting opinions as invalid rather than acknowledging valid counterarguments.
If the text ends with a rhetorical question like 'Who’s next?' implying further praise from other outlets, then it risks creating unnecessary anticipation or sensationalism without substantiating the claim.
If the text repeatedly highlights allegations of misquotation without providing context or evidence, then it risks appearing confrontational or accusatory, potentially undermining its credibility.
If the text selectively quotes statements about economic success without addressing broader challenges (e.g., wage stagnation), then it risks presenting an incomplete or biased picture of the economy.
If the text emphasizes contacting the WSJ for a correction, then it risks portraying the situation as adversarial rather than focusing on resolving the issue collaboratively.
If the text frames praise for the Trump economy as a concession by The Washington Post, then it risks oversimplifying or misrepresenting the outlet’s perspective to serve a political agenda.