Center for Peace Communications (CPC) – Bias and Credibility

Center for Peace Communications (CPC) - Right Bias - Conservative - Republican - Trump - Not CredibleFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


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 using an appeal 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 the Center for Peace Communications (CPC) as Right-Biased based on its selective focus without adequately addressing the broader context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to reliance on content that lacks verifiable sources, anonymous testimonies in animated videos, and a lack of transparency with finances.

Detailed Report

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

MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY

History 

The Center for Peace Communications (CPC) is a nonprofit that fosters peace and reconciliation in the Middle East and North Africa. It focuses on building public support for resolving identity-based conflicts through media, education, and advocacy. Dennis Ross, Chairman of CPC, is also a Distinguished Fellow at WINEP, and Joseph Braude, Founder and President of CPC, serves as a Non-Resident Scholar at WINEP. Center for Peace Communications (CPC) is based in Brooklyn, NY.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership 

The Center for Peace Communications is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit organization. As detailed in its IRS Form 990 filings, the Center for Peace Communications (CPC) generates revenue primarily through contributions and grants. However, the publicly available data does not disclose the specific foundations supporting it. You can find more information on ProPublica’s nonprofit database here.

Analysis / Bias 

CPC engages in various initiatives, including media projects. One of the key projects by CPC is the “Whispered in Gaza” series, which features animated videos depicting the challenges Palestinians face under Hamas rule. In review, the series lacks balance by not addressing the role of Israel in the Gaza conflict, creating a one-sided narrative. This selective focus may serve as a tool for shaping opinion rather than providing unbiased information. The lack of balance detracts from the site’s credibility as a reliable source of information on the Israel-Palestine conflict. While the “Whispered in Gaza” videos present narratives that may be based on real experiences, the absence of verifiable sources, the anonymity of the speakers, and the stylized presentation contribute to questions about the factuality and reliability of the content. Viewers should consider these factors when evaluating the accuracy of the information provided in the series. Following the analysis of the “Whispered in Gaza” series, it’s important to review other content, like their blog posts, to understand the organization’s narrative and approach.

In the blog post titled  “Arab Thinkers Call to Abandon Boycotts and Engage With Israel,” the CPC presents an argument that a group of liberal-minded Arab thinkers is advocating for engagement with Israel rather than continuing boycotts. The post references coverage by The New York Times but fails to provide a specific publication date for the article. When readers click the provided link, they are directed to an NYT article from 2019, which is not immediately disclosed in the blog. This omission can mislead readers into thinking these viewpoints are part of a more recent trend, potentially misrepresenting the relevance and timeliness of the information. The lack of proper context and transparency in referencing older material without clearly stating its age undermines the credibility of the blog post, as it may create a false impression of the current state of Arab-Israeli relations. You can review the blog post here.



Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate the Center for Peace Communications (CPC) as Right-Biased based on its selective focus without adequately addressing the broader context of the Israel-Palestine conflict. We rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to reliance on content that lacks verifiable sources, anonymous testimonies in animated videos, and a lack of transparency with finances. (M. Huitsing 08/22/2024)

Sources: https://www.peacecomms.org/

Last Updated on August 22, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check


Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation




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

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