LEFT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate Dabanga Sudan as left-center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them mixed factually due to poor sourcing and a lack of ownership transparency.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT-CENTER (-2.4)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.0)
Country: Sudan
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: LIMITED FREEDOM
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2008, Dabanga Sudan is a Sudanese broadcaster established to report on the Darfur crisis. It expanded its coverage over time, especially following Sudan’s December Revolution. Focusing on various topics, such as human rights, health, gender, youth, and civil society, Dabanga Sudan provides news coverage through radio, satellite TV, and online platforms. The organization is based in the Netherlands.
Read More on Sudanese media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
Dabanga Sudan’s funding sources are not fully disclosed. While they acknowledge receiving grants from international, governmental, and non-governmental bodies and individual donations, specifics are lacking. Free Press Unlimited, an initial supporter, is involved, but the exact ownership structure remains unclear, reflecting a lack of transparency in Dabanga’s ownership structure.
Sudan Background Information
The ongoing conflict in Sudan is a power struggle for control of the state and its resources between the Sudanese Armed Forces (SAF), led by General Abdel Fattah al-Burhan, and the paramilitary Rapid Support Forces (RSF), headed by Mohamed Hamdan “Hemedti” Dagalo. Prominent players in the region comprise the United States, the United Kingdom, Saudi Arabia, and the United Arab Emirates; they all have a significant influence on the political situation in the area and the way the conflict unfolds.
Analysis / Bias
Dabanga Sudan’s coverage of the Sudanese conflict, involving the SAF under General Burhan and the RSF led by General Hemedti, tends to be critical of the SAF and the government. In contrast, there is often a more empathetic focus on the RSF. This bias is evident in their choice of language and reliance on local sources.
For example, the article “More than 1,100 dead in besieged El Geneina, West Darfur” reports on the critical situation in El Geneina, West Darfur, with a focus on the high number of civilian casualties. The framing emphasizes the severity of the crisis and the involvement of armed groups, including the RSF, using strong, emotionally loaded language like “humanitarian disaster,” “killing of the elderly,” and comparisons to the “Rwandan genocide.” While the article mentions organizations like Doctors Without Borders and the Darfur Bar Association, it primarily relies on local sources and activists for information.
Another article titled “RSF Advisor: Sudan Army Command ‘Deeply Troubled” offers critical insight into the Sudanese military, specifically between the SAF and RSF. The article criticizes the SAF, highlighting alleged ties to Islamists and drone procurement issues through the perspective of an RSF advisor, Ibrahim Mukheir. The article contains emotionally loaded language such as “deeply troubled” and “regarding rumors.” The article relies primarily on statements from an RSF advisor and does not extensively cite external, independent sources for verification or balance.
In conclusion, both articles take a critical stance towards the Sudanese Armed Forces and the government, with more sympathetic portrayals of the RSF or the challenges civilians face in conflict zones. Both articles use strong, emotionally loaded language. Regarding sourcing, Dabanga Sudan often relies on statements from local activists, officials, and organizations, with less emphasis on external, independent verification. This approach can lead to a certain level of circular reporting, reiterating information within a limited source pool. The use of emotionally loaded language and reliance on internal sources contribute to a narrative that can be perceived as leaning towards certain perspectives, especially those critical of the Sudanese government and its armed forces. While this approach can bring attention to important issues, it also raises questions about the balance and diversity of perspectives in their reporting.
Editorially, they also report on social issues from a left-leaning perspective like this: Report: Denial of freedom of LGBTQ+ artistic expression in Sudan. In general, news reporting is reasonably factual; however, a lack of transparency and poor sourcing techniques reduces its credibility.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Dabanga Sudan as left-center biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them mixed factually due to poor sourcing and a lack of ownership transparency. (M. Huitsing 12/07/2023) Updated (10/15/2025)
Source: https://www.dabangasudan.org/
Last Updated on October 15, 2025 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