Daily Source Bias Check: The Hill Reporter

Found this insightful? Please consider sharing on your Social Media:

Hill Reporter - Left Bias - Liberal - Democrat - CredibleFactual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable


These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation.  They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

  • Overall, we rate the Hill Reporter Left biased based on story selection and wording that routinely favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180


According to Whois, the domain was purchased in May of 2018, and the website launched shortly thereafter. The Hill Reporter describes themselves as “Our mission is to deliver factually correct news stories. We report on breaking political stories that speak to the current political climate in the United States.”

The Hill Reporter was founded by three individuals, James Kosur, formerly an editor at Business Insider, and brothers Ed and Brian Krassenstein, members of the “#Resistance” to President Donald Trump.

The current managing editor is Brett D. Gilman.

In 2019, the website was purchased by Roman Romanuk, who is the CEO of Prezna, an internet marketing company based in Seattle, Washington.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

The website is owned by Roman Romanuk through its company Prezna. Revenue is derived through online advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, the Hill Reporter rarely publishes original news reporting but rather reports on existing news stories through staff writers. Story selection is strongly left-leaning featuring moderately loaded emotional language such as this Today Trump Slammed China Over COVID-19 Transparency, In January, he Lauded Them. The Hill Reporter frequently reports negatively on President Trump such as this Trump Explodes At Reporter When She Calls Out His Propagandist Coronavirus Video That Ignores His February Downplaying Of The Disease, while reporting favorably on those who have a liberal perspective Pelosi Says Trump’s Initial Coronavirus Denials Will Result In Deaths — ‘As The President Fiddles, People Are Dying’. A review of numerous articles demonstrates consistent proper sourcing of information to such sources as the New York Times, The Guardian, and FactCheck.org.

Editorially, the Hill Reporter offers an opinion page that strongly favors a liberal perspective such as this Former RNC Boss Blasts His Own Party’s Stance Over Their Obvious Voter Suppression Tactics. In general, the Hill Reporter is factual in reporting, while exhibiting a strong left-leaning bias through story selection, editorial positions, and wording.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate the Hill Reporter Left biased based on story selection and wording that routinely favors the left and High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing of information and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 11/12/2018) Updated (1/4/2021)

Source: https://hillreporter.com

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

Governor Bias Profiles

Subscribe With Email

Enter your email address to subscribe to MBFC and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 22,678 other subscribers

1 Comment on "Daily Source Bias Check: The Hill Reporter"

  1. Richard Babylon | January 8, 2021 at 5:42 pm |

    Although I didn’t recall ever hearing the “Reporter” part, I wasn’t certain at first that this was a different news source than “The Hill.” From the review details — and finding a separate entry for the latter — I see now that it is different, but because of the potential for confusion it occurred to me that it might be useful to make that distinction.

    Then I realized there must be numerous cases of one news source with a name similar to another. Not to add to your work-load but maybe someday you could add a section to each analysis wherein a list of sources is shown with names similar to the one being reviewed, perhaps under a heading like “Not to be confused with…”.

    In lieu of that, it might be a good idea to post such a general warning somewhere (assuming you haven’t already done that). Meanwhile I’ll just keep using caution, as usual. Thanks for reading.


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.