Founded in 1995, Antiwar.com is a libertarian website which describes itself as devoted to “non-interventionism” and as opposing imperialism and war. It is a project of the Randolph Bourne Institute. According to their about page: “This site is devoted to the cause of non-interventionism and is read by libertarians, pacifists, leftists, “greens,” and independents alike, as well as many on the Right who agree with our opposition to imperialism.”
The current managing editor is Eric Garris.
Read our profile on United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
Antiwar.com is a nonprofit 501(c) organization and is a part of the Randolph Bourne Institute. Revenue is derived through advertising and donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Antiwar.com reports news related to foreign military intervention, taking the position that the USA should not be engaged in foreign wars. Headlines and articles often do not use loaded language such as this: Russia Takes Over for US as Buffer Between Turkey, Syria. This straightforward report is properly sourced to the New York Times, The Hill and Washington Times.
The website also produces editorials that frequently uses loaded emotional language to support Libertarian positions such as this: Wake-Up Call On The Syrian Border: Time To End Washington’s Feckless Regime Change Policy and NATO, Too. This Op-Ed does not contain a single hyperlink to an external source. In another article Washington Is Wrong Once Again – Kurds Join Assad To Defend Syria republished from the factually Mixed The Ron Paul Institute for Peace & Prosperity, there is negative reporting on the media and establishment politics.
Although the website has a right leaning bias in reporting it does feature many writers from across the political spectrum, including conservatives such as Pat Buchanan, libertarians such as Ron Paul, and left leaning authors such as Noam Chomsky and Juan Cole.
Failed Fact Checks
Overall, we rate Antiwar.com Right-Center biased based on holding non-interventionist Libertarian positions. We also rate them Mostly Factual in reporting rather than High due to not always sourcing information as well as a failed fact check that was appropriately retracted. (D. Van Zandt 8/9/2016) Updated (08/06/2020)