RIGHT BIAS
These media sources are moderate 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 appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information reporting that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Right Biased based on the promotion of Libertarian economic perspectives. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to the promotion of misleading information regarding climate change.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
Press Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 1984 by J. Peter Grace and Jack Anderson, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) is a 501(c) nonprofit advocacy organization affiliated with The Council for Citizens Against Government Waste CCAGW PAC, which is their lobbying arm. CCAGW supports political candidates, and its mission is “to advocate the elimination of waste and inefficiency in government through lobbying and grassroots activities.” According to CAGW’s about page, they want “to eliminate waste, fraud, abuse, and mismanagement in government through research and public education activities.”
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) and the Council for Citizens Against Government Waste (CCAGW) is a 501(c) Nonprofit whose current chair is Steven Hofman, and the President is Thomas Schatz. According to their financial information page, “CAGW and CCAGW operate on a combined budget of approximately $4 million,” and they claim “Neither organization accepts government support.” They state that the majority of their funding comes from individual contributors. However, according to a Washington Post article titled “Conservative Groups Preached Small Government, Took SBA Loans,” the organization accepted federal assistance. A quote from the article reads, “At Citizens Against Government Waste, communications director Alexandra Abrams made a similar argument to justify accepting a loan between $150,000 and $350,000.”
Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) offers financial information for 2018 that shows the percentages of money received and spent. Revenue is derived through donations.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) publishes articles, reports, and analyses on waste and inefficiency in the government, pork-barrel spending, and earmarking. Further, they offer a congressional Pig Book (compilation of the pork-barrel projects in the federal budget). Under the section “The WasteWatcher,” they publish articles with emotionally loaded headlines such as ”Bad Policies Are Being Proposed by HHS Secretary Nominee Xavier Becerra.” In another article from 2016 written by Elizabeth Wright titled “Pushing Back on the Global Warming Hypothesis,” she quotes President Obama on the issue of Global warming where he says “the science is settled” and argues otherwise. She states, “In fact, it is clear that science is not settled when it comes to global warming.” According to NASA, the science is settled.
When sourcing Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW), thoroughly source their articles and utilize mostly credible sources such as Khn.org, Fox News, Forbes, The Sacramento Bee, and insidehealthpolicy.com. Editorially, they favor limited government and take libertarian positions such as limited regulation and taxes and advocacy for free-market capitalism. In general, they report factually; however, they promote climate change denialism, which rejects the consensus of science.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Citizens Against Government Waste (CAGW) Right Biased based on the promotion of Libertarian economic perspectives. We also rate them Mostly Factual for reporting, rather than High due to the promotion of misleading information regarding climate change. (M. Huitsing 1/1/2021) Updated (02/22/2022)
Source: https://www.cagw.org/
Last Updated on May 19, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources