Military Watch Magazine

Military Watch Magazine - Questionable - Propaganda - Right Bias - Russia - Not CrediblePolitican - Mixed Factual Rating


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of 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 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 Military Watch Magazine Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of pro-Russian propaganda and a complete lack of transparency regarding who is in charge of the website and where they originate.

Detailed Report

Reasoning: Russian Propaganda, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: Unknown
Press Freedom Rank: N/A
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic

MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Founded in 2017, Military Watch is an online Military Magazine whose goal is to provide “reliable and insightful analysis into international security and defense industry developments worldwide.” Military watch reports on defense-related events, featuring articles, news, analysis, technology, and videos. 

The website lacks transparency as it does not name authors, editors, or ownership or disclose the physical location.

Funded by / Ownership

Military Watch Magazine lacks transparency as they do not disclose ownership. Advertising generates revenue.

Analysis / Bias

Military Watch Magazine focuses on reporting defense-related events and publishes articles that are generally in line with the Russian Government’s narrative.

In review, they are highly biased in favor of Russia; for example, in the article “Indian and African Students Face Violence in Ukraine: Extremist Militias Target Non-Europeans – Reports,” a quote reads, “A number of sources have reported that white supremacist militias which have played a key role in the Ukrainian war effort have targeted foreigners, particularly Indians living in the country, in particular preventing them from leaving and using them as human shields against Russian attacks.” The article mentions “The Azov Battalion,” which has been a part of Russian propaganda, amplified by the Russian state news outlet RT. In the article, Military Watch repeats Russia’s narrative that there is a Nazi influence in Ukraine.

The Azov Battalion is a real extremist group that became (and still is) a faction in Ukraine’s national guard, but to equate them with having a “key role in the Ukrainian war effort” is to overstate their size and influence vastly.

Many articles are republished on strangemilitarystories.com and usually contain emotionally loaded language, such as “Seven Years Since Russia’s Military Intervention to Thwart NATO in Syria: A Very Different War to Ukraine.” A quote from the article reads. “Russia’s military operation in Syria is widely considered one of the most successful in the country’s history with minimal losses and objectives secured quickly and efficiently.” The wording appears to be praising and criticizing at the same time.

Another quote reads, “The confidence provided by the operation may well have been responsible for the ‘victory disease,’ as it is sometimes referred to, which fueled the complacency.” Therefore, this “hampered Russian effectiveness when intervening in Ukraine seven years later – a campaign which has had very different results.”

Another aspect of Military Watch Magazine is they do not list author information for articles published on the website, which presents a lack of transparency and makes it difficult to verify the information. For example, although they provide a hyperlink to credible sources like Reuters and N.Y. Times, there is no author information. An example is “U.S. Sees Attacks on Russian Nord Stream Pipelines as ‘Tremendous Opportunity’: State Secretary Blinken” and “Despite Hawkish Positions on China and Korea, Shinzo Abe Was Critical of Ukraine’s Zelensky and NATO’s Russia Stance.”

While Military Watch Magazine attempts to provide some balance, most articles hold a right-leaning bias and promote pro-Russian propaganda that can be misleading or false.

Failed Fact Checks

  • A third-party fact-checker has not fact-checked them to date.

Overall, we rate Military Watch Magazine Right-Center Biased and questionable based on the promotion of pro-Russian propaganda and a complete lack of transparency regarding who is in charge of the website and where they originate. (M. Huitsing 10/05/2022)

Source: https://militarywatchmagazine.com/

Last Updated on October 5, 2022 by Media Bias Fact Check

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