Facts can be presented in biased manners. If you really want me to, I'll explain myself.
> Donald Trump, the 45th president of the United States, has a history of speech and actions that have widely been viewed as racist or racially charged. Journalists, friends, and former employees have accused him of fueling racism in the United States.
Right out the door we start with the premise (or the presumed premise) of guilt. It's obvious you're supposed to assume that he is racist. Unfounded or not. Moving on to the sources, the first is an absurdly short audio clip sourced from NYT. The Audio clip is something about a race based TV show he proposed in 2005. The premise is insensitive for sure, I think, but hardly directly racist, as it's not like he was advocating for white supremacy. Not once does he state anything demeaning towards non-white people, even if the show was probably designed to incite shock value. It serves as a source for a journalist accusing him of racism, but, let's be honest, most journalists' opinions shouldn't even come into the equation, congratulations, you found some left leaning writer for TNYT calling him racist. Cool, but not exactly mind blowing, or game changing.
The Second source is again from the NYT. It's effectively an opinion article presented as an investigation(/justification/implication) of Trump's racism, because he refused to answer the question. "Are you racist?" I interpret this story differently to the Author, however. I interpret it as offense, not guilt, as it's a question he has answered many (many) times before. The author then goes on to make a flimsy argument based off of this. Another source for the journalist criteria, but inevitably biased.
The third source, is put simply, absolutely terrible. It goes on to list very questionable, even stupid things he's said. None of which are directly racist. I was actually excited when I was the title, because I was hoping for semi-recent, or solid examples, where he was sympathizing the confederacy, or retro-actively justifying 1950s racial atrocities. I found none of this. The only intriguing one is where he was sued for housing biases based on race. But as far as I've seen, he wasn't even found guilty. So it's hard to treat that alone as anything more then a footnote. The rest are plainly up to interpretation, which tends to swing wildly different ways.
The 4th source is from the rolling stone. I read the first paragraph, which happened to be a retroactive update, and I just left. The update treats extremely controversial topics like systematic racism, the Charlottesville riots, and Confederacy Statues, as purely black and white issues. In what is, an extremely disingenuous way. I lost all respect I had for the article, and I would totally throw out what it has to say, as it's obviously explicitly opinionated and biased. Totally useless for most conversations.
That's the first section ALONE, and it's sourcing was spotty at best. If you want me to continue, I will, but I don't want this to be too long.