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 Legal Reader as left-biased due to its tendency to endorse anti-establishment ideologies. We also rate them as Mixed for factual reporting due to support for poor sources like Children’s Health Defense, which promotes pseudoscience and lack of transparency with ownership and funding.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rank: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2002, Legal Reader offers commentary on legal issues, particularly those affecting consumers. The platform steers clear of complicated legal terminology, striving to make legal content accessible to everyone. Content on Legal Reader is primarily contributed by Editor-in-chief Jay W. Belle Isle, alongside staff writers and guest contributors who are experts in fields related to consumer safety. It is important to note that the content is intended for informational purposes and does not serve as legal advice. Legal Reader is based in Michigan.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The platform avoids corporate advertising. It’s not clear who owns the platform or how it is funded. The fact that the platform avoids corporate advertising suggests that it relies on alternative funding sources, but without further details, those sources remain unspecified.
Analysis / Bias
Legal Reader’s editorial content presents a detailed approach to legal and health-related topics. For instance, In the article “Children’s Health Defense Claims Victory as New York Supreme Court Upholds Ruling to Rescind COVID Vaccine Mandates for Healthcare Workers,” the author references CHD President Mary Holland’s critique of ‘government strong-arm tactics.’ This quotation emphasizes the skepticism towards vaccine mandates; while not explicitly prompting readers, this may lead readers to consider the balance between government authority and public health policies.
In another piece, “Robert F. Kennedy Jr. Receives the Defender Award from Children’s Health Defense,” Legal Reader portrays a positive view of Kennedy’s challenges to established health policies and practices, aligning with figures known for vaccine skepticism. This coverage suggests a favorable stance towards individuals questioning mainstream health narratives.
The critique of New York City’s mental health initiatives, notably the IMT program’s inefficiencies, in “Assessing New York’s Investment in Mental Health Street Teams,” Legal Reader critically evaluates the effectiveness of government policies, especially those impacting consumer rights and public health. The piece scrutinizes New York City’s mental health street team program, highlighting significant audit findings that question the program’s effectiveness and management.
Conversely, the article “Judge Dismisses Former President Donald Trump’s Lawsuit Against The New York Times” provides a balanced overview of legal proceedings, demonstrating the platform’s capability for objective reporting on legal disputes.
Legal Reader’s decision to publish a press release regarding Robert F. Kennedy Jr., even though it was external content, and their use of trustworthy sources such as The New York Times, CNN, ABC News, CNBC, The Guardian, and Deseret News., demonstrates their dedication to well-informed journalism. However, the selective emphasis on figures and topics that challenge mainstream health policies and critical views on government initiatives suggest a leaning towards perspectives that question established authorities. This skepticism, especially when not counterbalanced with various perspectives, can promote a narrative that questions the consensus on some issues.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Legal Reader as left-biased due to its tendency to endorse anti-establishment ideologies. We also rate them as Mixed for factual reporting due to support for poor sources like Children’s Health Defense, which promotes pseudoscience and lack of transparency with ownership and funding. (M. Huitsing 02/28/2024)
Source: https://www.legalreader.com/
Last Updated on April 5, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources