LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased sources.
- Overall, we rate National Security Journal as the least biased due to its focus on strategic defense topics with occasional establishment-leaning framing. We rate its reporting as High in factual reliability based on consistent external sourcing, transparent ownership and funding, and non-sensational content.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (1.5)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
The National Security Journal (NSJ) is an open-access online publication that covers topics related to defense, military technology, geopolitics, and international security. The website covers various categories, including Military Hardware, The Treaty, and North Korea Talks, positioning itself as an independent source of national security insights.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
NSJ is owned by National Security Journal Inc., based in Wilmington, Delaware, and funded exclusively by advertising revenue. According to its funding page, the publication does not accept money from foreign governments, defense contractors, or paid sponsorship.
Analysis / Bias
NSJ focuses primarily on defense capabilities, military strategy, and global security. It adopts a technical and analytical tone, often presenting information in a structured format with a “Key Points and Summary” section. Its editorial tone tends to be professional, avoiding overt ideological signaling. In Israeli Rights Groups Accuse Israel of Genocide, the article maintains a neutral tone, reporting on accusations by Israeli NGOs such as B’Tselem and Physicians for Human Rights Israel. It presents their claims clearly while also including official government responses, offering a balanced overview of a highly controversial issue without editorializing or emotive language.
In contrast, the article Israel: Now the Dominant Military Power in the Middle East? frames Israel as a strategic success story, emphasizing its technological and military superiority. While the piece briefly notes possible risks of overextension or diplomatic inflexibility, it does so in strategic terms, rather than addressing humanitarian or moral consequences. The framing is rooted in realist military analysis, focusing on power consolidation and deterrence rather than concerns about civilian costs or human rights. The article references the Palestinian territories only in the context of Iranian proxies, not as independent actors or populations affected by conflict.
Across its content, NSJ adheres to a structured format, routinely includes external citations, and avoids topics related to culture wars or populist rhetoric. While some analysis leans toward establishment defense narratives, the publication generally refrains from partisan positioning or emotionally charged framing. Regarding sourcing, NSJ encourages contributors to cite original documents and include hyperlinks and references in line with its submission guidelines. Articles frequently link to third-party sources, including Reuters, NBC News, defense white papers, and official statements.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate National Security Journal as the least biased due to its focus on strategic defense topics with occasional establishment-leaning framing. We rate its reporting as High in factual reliability based on consistent external sourcing, transparent ownership and funding, and non-sensational content. (M. Huitsing 07/30/2025)
Source: https://nationalsecurityjournal.org/
Last Updated on July 30, 2025 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