A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, overt propaganda, poor or no sourcing to credible information and/or is fake news. Fake News is the deliberate attempt to publish hoaxes and/or disinformation for the purpose of 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 notes section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
*Voting Polls do not affect MBFC bias ratings
Notes (D. Van Zandt): Freedom Outpost is an extreme right wing news website. The website publishes articles with sensational headlines that uses strong emotional loaded words to either favor conservatives or denigrate liberals. Freedom Outpost also uses questionable language when talking about African Americans. Further, Freedom Outpost has received a pants on fire claim by Politifact. This source also Promotes conspiracies such as Hillary Clinton being linked to Seth Rich’s murder and the Obama’s deep state. In both of these articles almost all sourcing is coming from other articles on the Freedom Outpost website and not from outside credible sources. Based on poor sourcing and a known failed fact check they are rated as an extreme right, questionable source.
Notes: (M. Allen): With tea party sponsored posts like this: http://freedomoutpost.com/lets-study-the-constitution-part-v-bill-of-rights/
And hit pieces about the possible son of Bill Clinton, which has been something floating around since the 90’s, the site freedomoutpost.com caters to a right leaning crowd with hit pieces and flashy titles.
Going back to this title: Let’s Study The Constitution, Part V – Bill of Rights lets focus on the lack of any citation for something that is supposedly trying to educate people about the constitution. The Bill of Rights are an extremely complicated aspect of the constitution. But they make several key failures in explaining it and for good reason. Here’s one: “So, the purpose of the Bill of Rights was to limit the Federal government, not the People.”[i] – this is basically what they are trying to get across in this whole thing. But even when drafting these bill of rights, it was only done to get buy in from other members of congress at the time.
Madison and Hamliton, both federalist, believed that the creation of the bill of rights would have the exact opposite effect. In Federalist #84 Hamilton says:
“…it is evident that it would furnish, to men disposed to usurp, a plausible pretense for claiming that power. They might urge with a semblance of reason that the Constitution ought not to be charged with the absurdity of providing against the abuse of an authority which was not given, and that the provision against restraining the liberty of the press afforded a clear implication that a power prescribe proper regulations concerning it was intended to be vested in the national government.”[ii]
His argument bares fruit when viewed at the bill of rights today. With the creation of the FCC to regulate “media,” Patriot Act & many different laws around the 2nd amendment from a federal and state level. Their simplistic view of the Bill of Rights removes many of the pro and cons one might get from reading the framing of the constitution to begin with. The Federalist Papers and by that notion the Anti Federalist Papers[iii], which I would urge anyone reading about US politics familiarize yourself with.
Some examples of titles that are ridiculous:
UNPLUGGING SAURON: EVEN SOME IN WASHINGTON ARE BEGINNING TO SEE THE TROUBLE WITH MOUNT DOOM
Pelosi Questions President Trump’s Fitness, then Lapses into Insanity – to be fair Pelosi does call President Trump, Bush several times but that does not make her Insane. Forgetful, perhaps.
The site uses known right wing media sources and often just reposts articles from them such as the extreme right biased – http://constitution.com.
They do use source video’s from CNN and CSPAN as well.
Update: On 6/14/17 the editor of Freedom Outpost penned a rebuttal against our review. As per our policy we always share criticism of our website and reviews. We feel no need to refute this article. We recommend you read our review and then visit the Freedom Outpost website and judge for yourself. Here is the link to Mr. Brown’s article: http://freedomoutpost.com/mediabiasfactcheck-com-is-about-as-biased-as-it-gets-heres-what-they-arent-telling-you/
We signed the Pro-Truth Pledge:
please hold us accountable.
Ads do not necessarily reflect the views of MBFC