BuzzLoving – Bias and Credibility

Buzzloving - Least Biased - Not credible or reliable - TabloidFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of credible information, a complete lack of transparency, and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. Please note sources on this list are not considered fake news unless specifically written in the reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate BuzzLoving as Least Biased Biased based on the story selection, which seems primarily driven by the potential for attracting clicks. We also rate them as Questionable for factual reporting due to poor sourcing and a lack of transparency.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Lack of Transparency, Poor Sourcing, Misinformation
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Launched in 2023, BuzzLoving is a tabloid-style website that provides content across a range of topics, such as politics, entertainment, and lifestyle. Its story selection and presentation employ sensationalism and clickbait tactics, often prioritizing potential reader engagement over factual accuracy and transparency. Information regarding its headquarters and editorial leadership is not readily available, adding to its lack of transparency.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

BuzzLoving does not disclose ownership information. It generates revenue through advertisements and sponsored content.

Analysis / Bias

BuzzLoving employs clickbait headlines and a tabloid structure, often prioritizing sensationalism over accuracy. It uses images, like stock photos, interspersed throughout the text. For instance, the headline Connecticut School Kids As Young As 8 Were Shown A Video About Gender Identity, Sent Home With “Puberty Kits” – Parents Are Angry’‘ is emotionally charged and provocative. The article discusses an incident at a Granby, Connecticut, elementary school where children were shown a video about gender identity and pride month without parental permission. However, it lacks hyperlinked sources to substantiate its claims. A quick internet search reveals that it mirrors a story from the UK-based Daily Mail, known as an unreliable source and categorized as a questionable source by MBFC. The Daily Mail cites WFSB, a local Hartford news station, which initially reported on the incident but didn’t mention puberty kits. BuzzLoving and Daily Mail have added details not present in the original WFSB report.

The article also failed to note that the puberty kits have been distributed for years, according to Board of Education member Monica Logan. Logan said the Kit was distributed on a separate occasion and said parents were notified in advance.

In another article titled ‘Man Finds Shark Egg on Beach with an Actual Live Shark in It, Takes It Home to Hatch,’ the sources used in the article include quotes from the man and references to the event with a Tiktok video. However, it doesn’t provide any external links or references to verify the information, a common practice in tabloid journalism.

BuzzLoving also publishes stories critical of Biden and Trump with sensational clickbait headlines. In general, BuzzLoving does not meet credibility standards based on using poor sources and misleading headlines designed to induce clicks (Clickbait).

Failed Fact Checks

  • BuzzLoving has not failed a fact-check as they do not produce original reporting; however, the sources they utilize have failed fact checks such as the Daily Mail.

Overall, we rate BuzzLoving as Least Biased based on the story selection, which seems primarily driven by the potential for attracting clicks. We also rate them as Questionable for factual reporting due to poor sourcing and a lack of transparency. (M. Huitsing 06/08/2023)


Last Updated on June 8, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check

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

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