TITLE: Explosive Evidence Exposes Police Cover Up, Motive In Vegas Massacre [VIDEO]
SENTENCE 1: While questions were raised about the who, what, and why of the deadliest mass shooting in recent American history [with Assange suggesting the FBI was behind the gruesome massacre], an explosive documentary titled “What Happened in Vegas” has just exposed the police for covering up the details of the shooting — because the casino allegedly paid them to.
SENTENCE 2: This is the truth that [Sheriff] Joe Lombardo doesn’t want to come out.”  It suggests the Las Vegas Police Department (LVPD) is holding critical information from the public because owners of the Mandalay Bay Hotel has paid them to keep the information a secret as it could lead to tens of millions in lawsuits for allowing Paddock to kill so many people.
SENTENCE 3: Now wonder a consortium of news outlets including the Los Angeles Times, The New York Times, and The Washington Post has filed a lawsuit asking the police to release body camera footage, recordings of 9/11 calls, dispatch calls, evidence logs and surveillance footage collected from the Mandalay Bay as evidence.

Bias label: moderately
Annotator rationales:
f you claim that a documentary has definitively "exposed" police misconduct without solid proof, then you risk presenting speculation as fact and misleading the reader. Does the video contain direct proof? Or does it only suggest a possibility without confirming it?
If you attribute a financial motive to the police without clear evidence, then you risk reinforcing a biased perspective and promoting an unverified conspiracy theory.
If you assert that the police are withholding critical information without verified proof, then you risk spreading misinformation and undermining trust in law enforcement based on speculation.
If you suggest that the hotel owners paid the police to suppress information without evidence, then you risk unfairly accusing private entities of corruption and misleading the audience.
If you suggest that an entity like the FBI was behind a violent event without clear supporting evidence, then you risk reinforcing conspiracy theories and misleading readers into believing a claim that may not be substantiated.