Daily Source Bias Check: Henry Makow (savethemales.ca)

Henry Makow (Savethemales) - Conspiracy - Fake News - Right Bias - Not CredibleHenry Makow (Savethemales) - Pseudoscience - Fake News - Right Bias - Not Credible

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


CONSPIRACY-PSEUDOSCIENCE

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, Henry Makow promotes pure tin foil hat conspiracies with a healthy dosage of hate against women, LGBTQ, and Jews. The website lacks credibility on every level.

Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT CONSPIRACY
Factual Reporting: LOW
Country: Canada (14/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Source: https://www.savethemales.ca/

Read Detailed Report

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

Subscribe With Email

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

Join 22,465 other subscribers

5 Comments on "Daily Source Bias Check: Henry Makow (savethemales.ca)"

  1. the hyperbole and enthusiasm in these descriptions tends to make me skeptical of the impartiality of this operation: “Overall, Henry Makow promotes pure tin foil hat conspiracies with a healthy dosage of hate against women, LGBTQ, and Jews. The website lacks credibility on every level.”

    “hate” and “credibility” are subjective and imprecise terms and “on every level” would seem to be hyperbolic (and more importantly I have no idea what it precisely means), which makes the overall analysis appear subjective.

    (if this website/exercise is intended to be fun and playful and not to be taken seriously, then i apologize for the misinterpretation.)

  2. i’m not arguing with the ruling, but i’m having a hard time tracing the language to the objective facts that underlie it. (even after reading the detailed “analysis”, clicking through to the SPLC’s website and clicking through to the savethemales website)

  3. regarding the human rights complaint, the human rights tribunal seems to have dismissed it: https://decisions.chrt-tcdp.gc.ca/chrt-tcdp/decisions/en/item/6487/index.do. and from what i can tell there is nothing preventing anyone who wants to from submitting a human rights complaint about anything or anyone. (articles and opinions the splc publishes also do not seem to have any legal significance and they seem to mix a lot of opinion and moralization in with facts)

  4. i do agree with the overall rating after visiting the site, i just don’t find this analysis very compelling, because it lacks objectivity and precision.

  5. i think it’s worth contrasting the language used in this bias check with the one for ‘commune magazine’ which used much more objective and precise wording:

    Overall, we rate Commune Magazine Left Biased based on editorial positions that favor socialism and communism. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to a lack of sourcing and transparency.

    among other things this is purely objective wording without any moral editorializing, and i am therefore much more inclined to believe it was based on an equally objective analysis.

Comments

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