A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing to credible information, a complete lack of transparency 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 reasoning section for that source. See all Questionable sources.
- Overall, we rate LADbible a Questionable source based on hyper-sensational stories, promotion of pseudoscience, and poor sourcing of information.
Reasoning: Sensationalism, Pseudoscience, Poor Sourcing
Country: United Kingdom
World Press Freedom Rank: UK 35/180
Founded in 2012, LADbible is a social media and entertainment social publisher based in London and Manchester, United Kingdom. The website is co-founded by Alexander “Solly” Solomou and Arian Kalantari and focused on publishing easily shareable clips, pictures, and stories. LADbible publishes a diverse range of original and user-generated content – spanning editorial, video, documentary, and live.
Funded by / Ownership
LADbible is owned by The LADbible Group Ltd and generates revenue through online advertising.
Analysis / Bias
In review, LADbible publishes sensational videos and entertainment news. Some of these stories and videos are clearly pseudoscience such as this: ‘Time Traveller’ Knows Who Will Be President In The Year 2045 and this Vegan Reveals He Ejaculated For First Time In Months After Giving Up Diet. The LADbible has also been criticized for misogyny. Although there is plenty of factual stories/videos on this website, there are enough sensational/misleading/fake ones to classify this source as questionable.
A factual search reveals a few failed fact checks.
Overall, we rate LADbible a Questionable source based on hyper-sensational stories, promotion of pseudoscience, and poor sourcing of information. (D. Van Zandt 4/6/2019)