Human Rights Watch

Last updated on February 18th, 2021 at 03:03 pm

Human Rights Watch - Left Center Bias - Liberal - Progressive - Credible - ReliableFactual Reporting: High - Credible - Reliable


LEFT-CENTER BIAS

These media sources have a slight to moderate liberal bias.  They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor liberal causes.  These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Left-Center sources.

  • Overall, we rate Human Rights Watch (HRW) Left-Center Biased based on advocacy for policies that are favored by the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

Founded in 1978, Human Rights Watch (HRW) is an American-founded international non-governmental organization that conducts research and advocacy on human rights. HRW seeks to achieve change by publicly pressuring governments and their policymakers to curb human rights abuses, and by convincing more powerful governments to use their influence on governments that violate human rights. The website comes in numerous different languages. The current executive director is Kenneth Roth.

In 1997 HRW shared in the Nobel Peace Prize as a founding member of the International Campaign to Ban Landmines and it played a leading role in the 2008 treaty banning cluster munitions.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Human Rights Watch is a nonprofit NGO that is funded through donations. Notable donors include Open Society Foundations. In 2020, the HRW Board of Directors discovered that Human Rights Watch accepted a $470,000 donation from Saudi real estate magnate Mohamed Bin Issa Al Jaber, owner of a company HRW “had previously identified as complicit in labor rights abuse”, under the condition that the donation not be used to support LGBT advocacy in the Middle East and North Africa. The gift was returned and Human Rights Watch issued a statement saying that accepting the funding was a “deeply regrettable decision” in response to investigative reporting from The Intercept regarding the donation. The money was returned when discovered.

Analysis / Bias

In review, Human Rights Watch publishes research on human rights violations around the world. HRW opposes violations of what are considered basic human rights. This includes capital punishment and discrimination on the basis of sexual orientation. They also advocate for freedoms in connection with fundamental human rights, such as freedom of religion and freedom of the press. Articles and headlines do use loaded emotional language such as this Belarus: Crackdown Escalates. This report is properly sourced. In-depth reports also contain emotional language such as this “Like I’m Drowning’: Children and Families Sent to Harm by the US ‘Remain in Mexico’ Program.

Editorially, Human Rights Watch aligns with the left as they do not support conservative policies such as the Mexican Border Wall and support LGBT rights. In general, they report news factually and with a moderate left-leaning bias.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years. They are used as a resource for fact-checkers.

Overall, we rate Human Rights Watch (HRW) Left-Center Biased based on advocacy for policies that are favored by the left. We also rate them High for factual reporting due to proper sourcing and a clean fact check record. (D. Van Zandt 2/16/2017) Updated (2/18/2021)

Source: https://www.hrw.org/

Video Advertisement

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources

NFN-Low Biased Factual News