Founded in 2000 and headquartered in Alexandria, Virginia, GlobalSecurity.org is a website that provides “background information and developing news stories in the fields of defense, space, intelligence, WMD, and homeland security.”
Funded by / Ownership
GlobalSecurity.org is owned and directed by John E. Pike, an expert in the field of security and defense, and he serves as its director. The organization generates revenue through advertising and subscription services. It allows readers to access four free pages before requiring them to subscribe.
Analysis / Bias
GlobalSecurity.org presents an analysis of various security-related topics. For example, under the military section, they published an article with a neutral headline, “Slovakia – MiG-29SD.” In this article, the author cites the Minister of Defence of the Slovak Republic, Jaroslav Nad, statements about sending MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine using a quote: “The MiG-29s have a long good record of service in the Slovak Air Force to the benefit of protecting Slovak airspace. Our pilots have logged over 20,240 flying hours on the aircraft, both on exercises and operations. However, for Slovakia, there are no prospects for the operation of Soviet-era equipment into the future. With their operability and warfighting capability degraded by low reliability, these air assets are incompatible with our NATO allies and can no longer be upgraded.” We compared the minister’s words using Reuters reporting about the statement.
The Reuters article quotes Nad regarding the possibility of sending MiG-29 fighter jets to Ukraine, “I think it is time to make a decision. People are dying in Ukraine; we can really help them; there is no room for Slovak politicking.” The GlobalSecurity.org article provides background information about the MiG-29s, their acquisition by Slovakia, their upgrade history, and the MiG-29’s capabilities; however, the information presented does not have hyperlinks and relies on quotes for sourcing. Hyperlinks can provide context for the claims made in the article and help readers further investigate the topic if they wish to do so. In this case, they can’t. GlobalSecurity.org occasionally hyperlinks sources such as “North Korea Special Weapons Guide” using factually mixed sources such as New York Post and Breitbart.
Another article titled Trump Doctrine – In Office – 2017 states that Trump’s policies deviate from traditional American foreign policy, using language such as “sacrifice US leadership” and “walking away from a rule-based global trading system.” Another quote reads, “Trump was prepared to sacrifice US leadership in setting international rules and dominating global institutions in order to make the US stronger internally.”
A different article under the title “Biden Doctrine,” The article has a left-leaning bias toward Biden’s foreign policy and team, emphasizing their experience and commitment to traditional diplomacy and multilateralism. The quote reads, “Biden’s diplomatic credentials, burnished during his time as Vice President and long tenure in the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, mean he actually knows how government works,” and “America is going back to the good old mundane intergovernmental relations, which may be slightly boring, but nonetheless far more predictable and sustainable.” However, the article also presents critical voices like Hamid Dabashi, Laura Ingraham, and Senator Tom Cotton.
Finally, editorially they report negatively on former Rep. Tulsi Gabbard such as this: “It appears as though Moscow Center has reactivated their asset Tulsi Gabbard in the service of the Russian war on Ukraine. Tulsi is a regular on Fox, reliably spouting Moscow’s line. It is rather difficult to know what to make of her, as today we are rather at a loss of words for her apparent role.” In general, GlobalSecurity.org is fact-based and holds very slight left-leaning biases.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years. They are used as a reference by IFCN fact-checkers.
Overall, we rate GlobalSecurity.org on the left side of least biased based on editorial positions that slightly favor the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to a clean fact-check record and for being used as a resource by fact-checkers. (M. Huitsing 03/19/2023)
Last Updated on May 24, 2023 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.