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 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 Disrn Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the Christian right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the occasional use of poor sources, questionable views on science, and a failed fact check.
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
Founded in 2019 by Babylon Bee founder Adam Ford and the satire site’s current owner, Seth Dillon, Disrn is a news and opinion website/app that summarizes news from a conservative-leaning perspective. The website somewhat lacks transparency as they do not provide an about page or clearly disclose who is involved with the website. However, in an interview with the Daily Caller, Adam Ford states, “Our news articles will be objective, but we will report on things that Christians and conservatives care about,” Ford told the DC. “The opinion pieces, newsletters, and coming podcasts will be, of course, from a Christian and conservative perspective.” Finally, Disrn’s tagline is “brief, smart, faithful.”
Funded by / Ownership
The website does not clearly state who owns Disrn; however, there is a 2020 copyright listing to Disrn LLC at the bottom of each page. According to their welcome page, Adam Ford and Seth Dillon are the owners of Disrn LLC. Revenue is generated through advertising and subscription fees.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Disrn does not produce original news stories but rather summarizes news in less than 300 words. The website also offers a newsletter written by Adam Ford and a second for the website as a whole. Disrn is available as an app on both IOS and Android.
Story selection ranges from low biased straightforward news reporting such as this Virginia, Maryland governors issue stay-at-home orders to more sensationalized right-leaning headlines such as this Lindsey Graham slams Pelosi’s “shameful, disgusting” remarks about Trump. Stories are properly sourced to credible media outlets such as The Hill, Whitehouse.gov, Worldometers, and the Washington Post. However, they sometimes use sources with poor track records with fact-checkers such as Breitbart and the Daily Caller. For example, On March 12th, 2020, Disrn ran a story sourced to the Daily Caller with the headline: Pelosi sought to include federal funding for abortions as part of coronavirus bill: White House officials. This claim was rated false by Politifact.
Editorially, Disrn aligns with Pro-Life advocates and holds pro-Christian perspectives such as this: Opinion: The delusion of godlessness and the limits of hope. Further, many opinion pieces denigrate the left, such as this: Opinion: We need to accept that Joe Biden is not mentally sound. Many opinion pieces do not align with the consensus regarding human-influenced climate change when it comes to science. A quote from Op-Ed reads, “Given that they view me with such utter contempt, I understand that it’s highly unlikely that those belonging to this religion of Warmerism will express any interest at all in my advice to them on this topic.” Finally, many opinion pieces also promote biblical literalism on positions such as the resurrection and views on evolution. Disrn is mostly factual in their news summaries but has failed a fact check while editorially aligning with the conservative Christian right.
Failed Fact Checks
- Pelosi sought to include federal funding for abortions as part of coronavirus bill: White House officials – False
Overall, we rate Disrn Right Biased based on story selection and editorial positions that favor the Christian right. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to the occasional use of poor sources, questionable views on science, and a failed fact check. (D. Van Zandt 3/30/20)