Last updated on October 5th, 2020 at 04:18 pm
These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward liberal 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 reporting of information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate Food and Water Watch left biased based on environmental positions that always favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to not always adhering to the consensus of science and the use of poor sourcing techniques.
Factual Reporting: MIXED
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Founded in 2005, Food and Water Watch is a Washington, D.C.-based non-governmental organization group that focuses on corporate and government accountability relating to food, water, and corporate overreach. The organization was founded by staff from Public Citizen.
Funded by / Ownership
Analysis / Bias
In review, Food and Water Watch has a history that includes stopping fossil fuel and fossil fuel extraction, regulating factory farms, advocating for renewable energy, fighting water privatization, stopping bad trade deals, increasing transparency in our food system, and standing up for human rights. Food and Water Watch routinely use emotionally loaded words such as this: When His Father Died, He Googled Teflon And Cancer And Found Out About PFAS. A review of their campaign tag reveals an almost 100% left bias toward environmental issues such as fracking and climate change. We found that sourcing usually leads back to Food and Water Watch and also leads to factually mixed sources such as Think Progress. While Food and Water Watch clearly supports the consensus of science when it comes to climate change, they do not with GMOs.
Overall, we rate Food and Water Watch left biased based on environmental positions that always favor the left. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting due to not always adhering to the consensus of science and the use of poor sourcing techniques. (D. Van Zandt 3/8/2019)