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 Angry White Men Left Biased based on wording and story selection that is opposed to the far right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting, despite reasonably sourced information due to a complete lack of transparency with authors, editors, owners, and funding.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Angry White Men is a blog that tracks the alt-right – white nationalist movement. The blog was founded in 2014 but does not have a name associated with it. According to their about page, the “blog is dedicated to tracking the adherents of the new white supremacy: the Alt-Right movement, neo-reactionaries, Red Pillers, Identitarians, and Dark Enlightenment thinkers.”
Funded by / Ownership
Funding and ownership are not disclosed. There isn’t evidence of online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
Angry White Men occasionally uses strong loaded language in their headlines and articles such as this: Lauren Southern’s ‘Farmlands’ Is Lazy, Dishonest, And Racist. Although the wording conveys bias the articles are all very well sourced to credible information.
The website also offers a section called Cucktionary that defines terms that are used to “expose white nationalists, adherents of the alt-right movement, and other neo-reactionaries.” Angry White Men also offers their blog roll which consists of mostly left-leaning sources such as Media Matters and Think Progress as well as least biased sources such as The Conversation.
Failed Fact Checks
- None to date
Overall, we rate Angry White Men Left Biased based on wording and story selection that is opposed to the far right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting, despite reasonably sourced information due to a complete lack of transparency with authors, editors, owners, and funding. (D. Van Zandt 9/13/2018) Updated (8/19/2020)