The article's factual accuracy is questionable as it largely relies on hyperbolic statements and personal opinions rather than verifiable facts. For example, it claims Biden is the lowest-rated president in 65 years, excluding Nixon, based on a Gallup poll, but doesn't provide specifics of the poll or its methodology. Other claims, such as the media covering up Biden's alleged dementia, are made without evidence or source attribution. The article's reliance on sarcastic remarks and exaggerated comparisons, such as likening Biden's alleged scandals to Watergate, further detracts from its factual accuracy.

The article lacks balance, presenting a one-sided, negative portrayal of President Biden without offering alternative viewpoints or acknowledging any positive aspects of his presidency. It heavily criticizes the media and other public figures, suggesting widespread bias and cowardice, yet doesn't provide counterpoints or perspectives from those who might disagree. The article dismisses potential support for Biden or differing opinions, reinforcing a biased narrative. This lack of balance reduces its ability to provide a comprehensive analysis of the situation it discusses.

While the article is clear in its use of language and structure, it is primarily driven by emotive and sarcastic language, which may detract from its overall clarity for readers seeking factual information. The tone is consistently critical and humorous, which may appeal to some audiences but could alienate others who prefer a more neutral or informative approach. The structure is logical, with a consistent theme throughout, but the heavy reliance on sarcasm and rhetorical questions may obscure the article's main points for readers unfamiliar with the context.

The article does not cite any authoritative sources to substantiate its claims. While it references a Gallup poll, it fails to provide details or a direct link to the poll itself, which undermines the credibility of this reference. The article also mentions Brian Williams and his comments to The Washington Post but does not provide direct quotes or links to these statements. The absence of diverse, credible sources and the reliance on unspecified statements from public figures severely impacts the article's source quality.

The article lacks transparency, providing minimal context for its claims and failing to disclose potential conflicts of interest. It does not explain the methodologies or data sources behind its assertions, such as the Gallup poll results. The article also does not clarify the affiliations or biases of the host, Greg Gutfeld, or other panelists involved in the discussion. This lack of transparency makes it difficult for readers to assess the validity of the arguments presented and understand the potential influences on the article's content.