DemState - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check

QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to 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 very 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 DemState Questionable based on a lack of transparency, fictitious author profiles, a probable Imposter site, and pro-Kremlin narrative framing. We also rate it Low for factual reporting due to poor sourcing, misleading health claims, and signs of recycled or AI-generated content.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Imposter Site, Lack of Transparency, Misleading Content
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (2.6)
Factual Reporting: LOW (8.1)
Country: Unknown
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: N/A
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

DemState describes itself as a source for “progressive news & commentary.” It was launched in 2025, as indicated by the timestamps on its articles, and it features sections dedicated to U.S. politics, international news, and culture. The About page outlines its mission to “advance democratic principles and social justice” and claims to adhere to rigorous fact-checking and maintain editorial independence. However, the site lacks a masthead, a list of newsroom personnel, a physical address, or specific contact names, providing only generic contact forms and emails.

DemState appears to sit inside a small network of uniform, template-driven sites that all advertise in the footer: “A Division of 2Dash Media Group.” Two other sites carry the same footer or ownership line: PozorMedia / “Russian Insider” and Aqui24. All three share near-identical architecture, category lists, and boilerplate pages, indicating a common backend and operator. We can find no company details for 2Dash Media Group.

The site’s legal pages show template carry-over from unrelated brands: DemState’s Privacy Policy and Terms of Service still refer to “RedStatePost,” “Freedom Media,” and “GlobalVoice Media.” This suggests recycled boilerplate rather than a legitimate organization with a consistent legal identity.

Location: Unknown

Ownership / Funding

DemState says it is owned by “2Dash Media Group” (private) and is funded by subscriptions, advertising, and private investment. The site runs a public Advertise page (“Reach Engaged Liberal Americans”) yet the sales deck mixes incongruous targeting like “Traditional values, Faith & family, Second Amendment” — messaging that does not match the stated progressive niche. We observed no third-party display ads on article pages; monetization currently appears minimal.

The sibling sites also claim 2Dash ownership in footers or About pages: PozorMedia/“Russian Insider” and Aqui24. None of the network sites discloses verifiable corporate registration details, a newsroom location, or named executives.

Analysis / Bias

Self-description: DemState explicitly markets a progressive editorial perspective.

Observed content: The front page and “International” section include narratives and framing that do not match a typical U.S. progressive outlet and at times echo pro-Kremlin lines. For example, coverage of Zapad-2025 military drills in Belarus (“Putin thanks countries attending…”) lists a long roster of participants/observers (including the U.S. and DPRK) without sourcing. Independent reporting confirms Zapad-2025 took place and that U.S. officers observed portions of the drills.

DemState also features COVID-19 vaccine content with misleading claims, e.g., “EU Commission admits mRNA injections were released without complete safety data.” The European Commission’s health/disinformation page and major science fact-checkers directly contradict this statement; regulators (EMA/FDA) describe ongoing evaluation with updated approvals rather than any “admission” of unsafe authorization.

Where DemState mirrors real news (e.g., judge dismisses terrorism counts in the Luigi Mangione/UnitedHealthcare CEO case), mainstream outlets/AP reporting match the basic fact, but DemState does not consistently link sources. The story is accurate; the sourcing practice is weak.

Imposter Network signals & AI:
— Identical site templates/footers across DemState, PozorMedia, and Aqui24;
— Legal pages with mismatched brand names;
— Generic author bios (e.g., “Dr. Aisha Washington,” “Priya Patel,” “Maya Rodriguez”) lacking contact details or corroboration;
— Repetitive headline scaffolding (“Breaking,” short video stubs), placeholder “Advertisement” zones, and inconsistent political targeting on the Advertise page.
These are hallmarks of a low-transparency content network that may be mixing machine-generated drafts with manual edits. While we can’t prove AI authorship conclusively, the pattern is strong.

Bias verdict: Although the site markets itself as progressive, the observable framing skews toward pro-Kremlin international coverage and sensational, low-sourced claims, inconsistent with its stated mission. We classify the editorial bias as “Propaganda/Disinformation-leaning (Pro-Kremlin narratives), not reliably left/right in the U.S. sense.”

Failed Fact Checks / Problematic Claims

DemState content we reviewed includes at least one false/misleading claim pattern:

“EU Commission admits mRNA vaccines were released without complete safety data” — Misleading. EU/EMA/FDA materials and independent fact-checks show continuous safety evaluation and updated formula approvals; there is no EU “admission” matching DemState’s headline.

Overall, we rate DemState Questionable based on a lack of transparency, fictitious author profiles, a probable Imposter site, and pro-Kremlin narrative framing. We also rate it Low for factual reporting due to poor sourcing, misleading health claims, and signs of recycled or AI-generated content. (D. Van Zandt 09/16/2025)

Source: https://demstate.com/

Last Updated on September 16, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check