CensorTrack - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

RIGHT BIAS

These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.

Overall, we rate CensorTrack as right-biased due to its focus on conservative viewpoints. We also rate it as factually mixed due to the potential subjectivity in interpreting the evidence, the credibility of the sources, and the accessibility of the reports.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

History

CensorTrack is an initiative under MRC Free Speech America that serves as a database documenting alleged censorship by big tech companies against conservative content. MRC Free Speech America is a Media Research Center (MRC) division based in Virginia. It is focused on combating what it perceives as censorship of conservative voices by major tech companies.

On 5/21/2024, Newsbusters wrote a rebuttal/criticism of MBFC’s reviews on MRC Free Speech America and CensorTrack. You can read their criticisms here.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

CensorTrack is an initiative under MRC Free Speech America, and MRC Free Speech America operates under the larger umbrella of the Media Research Center (MRC), a nonprofit 501(c)(3) organization based in Virginia, which means it is tax-exempt and relies on donations to fund its operations. Charlie Kirk, Newt Gingrich, Bill Walton, and David Bozell serve on the board of advisors.

Analysis / Bias

CensorTrack is an online database that catalogs alleged censorship by major tech platforms such as Facebook, Twitter, Google, and YouTube, focusing on conservative viewpoints. It supports MRC Free Speech America’s advocacy by providing evidence for these claims, intending to influence policy changes and increase scrutiny of tech companies’ actions.

The database, for instance, documents 173 documented cases (at the time of this review) related to Donald Trump, making him the most cited individual on the site. Entries detail flagged, blocked, or removed content associated with Trump, along with platform details, incident dates, and content descriptions.

CensorTrack’s evidence often includes screenshots from conservative individuals’ social media accounts. For instance, the “MAKE AMERICA GREAT AGAIN INC Case #6742” case study documents an instance where Google removed and later restored a Trump ad, which was supported by screenshots from the Google Ad library showing the ad’s removal for an alleged unnamed “policy violation.” The database also features social media accounts of conservative figures like Ian Miles Cheong and Dinesh D’Souza, known supporters of Former President Trump.

While CensorTrack provides a comprehensive list of alleged instances of censorship, the validity of each case often relies on screenshots and their interpretation, which can be subjective. The reports published by CensorTrack are frequently cited in MRC Free Speech’s Newsbusters articles and press releases and by conservative networks such as Breitbart and Fox News. However, the accessibility of the reports cited is crucial for transparency and verification.

For instance, the report titled “CensorTrack Database Surpasses 6,000 Documented Cases of Big Tech Censorship” is referenced by various sources like Breitbart. However, it’s worth noting that the actual page on the CensorTrack website appears broken or unavailable despite being indexed by search engines and appearing in search results. This potential issue could impact the report’s credibility and the overall reliability of the database.

In general, CensorTrack’s comprehensive documentation of alleged censorship is valuable. However, it could benefit from more robust verification processes to enhance credibility, which would help ensure the accuracy of the instances recorded and provide a more balanced perspective on the issue of censorship.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years. Other MRC properties have failed numerous fact-checks

Overall, we rate CensorTrack as right-biased due to its focus on conservative viewpoints. We also rate it as factually mixed due to the potential subjectivity in interpreting the evidence, the credibility of the sources, and the accessibility of the reports. (M. Huitsing 05/17/2024)

Source: https://censortrack.org/

Last Updated on May 23, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check