Inkstick Media - Bias and Credibility

LEFT BIAS

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 information reporting that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

Overall, we rate Inkstick Media as left-biased based on their editorial choices that frequently present critical perspectives on U.S. foreign policy, often aligning with left-leaning viewpoints. Their content is rated mostly factual rather than high due to their reliance on a mix of sources with varying factual ratings and the inclusion of advocacy-focused websites.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

According to their About page, Inkstick Media is a nonprofit news platform that adopts the military slang term for a plain black pen, aiming to present foreign policy in a manner that is accessible and engaging to a broader audience. They seek to move away from jargon-heavy and technical narratives, striving for a more relatable and diverse approach to discussing national security and foreign policy issues. The platform aims to present these topics in a way that resonates with everyday experiences, highlighting the human aspect behind policy decisions. Inkstick Media is headquartered in Maryland.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Inkstick Media, a 501(c)(3) nonprofit, receives funding from multiple sources, including philanthropic organizations like the Carnegie Corporation of New York and the MacArthur Foundation. Revenue is generated through Donations, and they publicly disclose donors who contribute $5,000 or more annually. However, the charity has a Two-Star rating on Charity Navigator with an overall score of 66%, indicating that it “Needs Improvement,” particularly in the area of Accountability and finance.

Analysis / Bias

A review of one of their articles, “How the U.S.’ State Sponsors of Terrorism List’ Reinforces the Illegal Blockade of Cuba,” suggests a critical perspective on U.S. foreign policy. It challenges the official U.S. stance and emphasizes the negative consequences of its policies. The article incorporates historical references, such as the Cuban Revolution and the Cuban-Five incident, to contextualize its critique. Furthermore, it discusses U.S. government involvement in covert operations and interventions in Latin America.

The sources used in the article include official platforms such as state.gov and cubaminrex.cu (the official site of Cuba’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs). It also contains publications with varying factual ratings, such as The Intercept (rated left and mostly factual), Washington Post (rated left and mostly factual), and Wikipedia, Fox News, and The Guardian (rated factually mixed). They also include least biased sources, such as Every CRS Report (rated factually high) and France24 (rated factually high). Additionally, they reference specific advocacy-focused websites like FreeTheFive.org and Cuba-solidarity.org.uk, which do not have a Media Bias/Fact Check rating but also contribute to the article’s narrative.

Another article titled “2024 Will See More Than 50 Elections Around the World. What Risk Does AI Pose?” republished from the United States Institute of Peace, discusses the impact of AI on global politics and elections. It explores the potential for AI to spread misinformation, disinformation, and conspiracy theories in international elections. Additionally, the article examines the use of AI in voter outreach and the risks associated with AI-generated deepfakes and chatbots.

Regarding bias and framing, the article presents a critical view of the role of AI in politics. This perspective is evident in the emphasis on the potential negative consequences of AI, such as the spread of misinformation and the creation of deepfakes. The language used is somewhat emotionally loaded, particularly when discussing deepfakes and their impact on women and minorities, highlighting the risks of digital harassment and online abuse. The article also addresses the challenges technology companies and governments face in managing the spread of false information facilitated by AI. The sources cited in the article support its arguments. References to Politico, Wired, and CBS News provide evidence for the claims about AI’s role in elections and the issues with misinformation and deepfakes. The article also mentions efforts by entities like the Ministry of Communication and Information Technology in Indonesia and the Digital Action nonprofit.

In summary, the article leans towards a critical and cautious viewpoint regarding the impact of AI on politics and elections, using various sources to back its claims.

Generally, Inkstick Media provides a platform for alternative and diverse perspectives on foreign policy, particularly those that may not be widely covered in mainstream media. However, the tone and focus of their content may lean towards a critical view of U.S. foreign policy and its global impact, which tends to be one-sided. While offering valuable insights, this approach may not always present a balanced view of complex geopolitical issues.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Inkstick Media as left-biased based on their editorial choices that frequently present critical perspectives on U.S. foreign policy, often aligning with left-leaning viewpoints. Their content is rated mostly factual rather than high due to their reliance on a mix of sources with varying factual ratings and the inclusion of advocacy-focused websites. (M. Huitsing 01/06/2024)

Source: https://inkstickmedia.com/

Last Updated on April 5, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check