Daily Source Bias Check: Got Questions

Got Questions - Conspiracy - Fake News - Bias - Not Credible - ChristianGot Questions - Pseudoscience - Fake News - Bias - Not Credible - Christian

Factual Reporting: Low - Not Credible - Not Reliable - Fake News - Bias


Sources in the Conspiracy-Pseudoscience category may publish unverifiable information that is not always supported by evidence. These sources may be untrustworthy for credible/verifiable information; therefore, fact-checking and further investigation is recommended on a per article basis when obtaining information from these sources. See all Conspiracy-Pseudoscience sources.

  • Overall, we rate Got Questions a far-right Pseudoscience website that interprets the bible literally.

Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: USA (44/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Source: https://www.gotquestions.org/

Read Detailed Report

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 


MBFC Donation

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

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

Subscribe With Email

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

Join 22.9K other subscribers

2 Comments on "Daily Source Bias Check: Got Questions"

  1. $16,000 or even more is very simple and easy to earns while staying and working online. start receiving paychecks every month simply by doing work online. i recently received $17493 in my bank of my last month’s working. i just gave this job 2 hours maximum from my day.

    simple and easy home based job. go here for info….. http://Paybuzz1.com

  2. i think this is an objective, informative, factual report, but i think it could be useful to add a category for content that is ‘Religious’ in nature.

    It’s commonly understood that religious content is not scientific, and conflicts with science, as a general rule, so calling it pseudo-scientific doesn’t really make sense.

    As an aside, it’s worth noting that the modern physics community acknowledges one explanation for the universe that can’t be ruled out is that we live in something like a computer simulation (https://www.scientificamerican.com/article/are-we-living-in-a-computer-simulation/). this could theoretically mean that our reality didn’t ‘exist’ until one second ago and every thing we see in our reality was very quickly generated as the starting state of the simulation. it also means the simulation creator could theoretically arbitrarily change the simulation and its rules at any time.


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