Newsmax - Right Bias - Questionable Conservative - Republican - Libertarian - Not Credible - Fake NewsFactual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


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.

  • We rate Newsmax Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as well as numerous failed fact checks.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Conspiracy Theories, Pseudoscience, Propaganda, Fake News, Failed Fact Checks
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: TV Station
Traffic/Popularity: High Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY


Newsmax is an American conservative biased news and opinion website founded by Christopher Ruddy in 1998 and based in West Palm Beach, Florida. Christopher Ruddy is the president and CEO of Newsmax Media. According to an Atlantic article, Ruddy is also a close friend of Donald Trump. The website is divided into four main sections: Newsmax, Newsmax Health, Newsmax Finance, and Newsmax World, divided into various subsections.  Newsmax Media also operates a print magazine called Newsmax and the cable news channel Newsmax TV.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Newsmax is owned by Christopher Ruddy, who is the CEO of Newsmax Media. Newsmax is funded through advertising and via a paid subscription to their platinum plan, allowing more access to content.

Analysis / Bias

Newsmax has a category on their sidebar called Around the Web, which is deceptive advertising. It looks like news links and leads to fake pseudo-science information and products. For example: “Suffer with Low Energy, Weight Gain & Fatigue” leads to a new website promoting products. In another category called Specials, they publish news with sensational headlines resulting in headlines such as these: “Nobel Prize-Winning Discovery Makes Your Cells Nearly “Immortal” SPECIAL: New way to grow biologically younger,“ which again leads to an advertisement.

When reporting real news, Newsmax uses minimally loaded words in their headlines and articles such as “NYT: Growing Puerto Rican Population Could Offset GOP Cubans” and moderately loaded: “FEMA’s Long: No Time For San Juan Mayor’s ‘Political Noise.’ Newsmax also aggregates news stories from credible sources such as Reuters and the AP.  Newsmax holds a strong right editorial bias. The majority of editorials favor conservatives, such as “Could Google Lose the Left?” which first appeared in the right biased Conservative Review.

Newsmax does not always align with experts’ consensus in the given field when it comes to science. For example, they often promote “no global warming,” which is simply untrue. Further, they have promoted misinformation regarding vaccines’ safety, chemtrails, CoronaVirus conspiracies, and unproven 2020 election fraud disinformation. In general, Newsmax is not a credible source that holds a strong right-leaning editorial bias.

Failed Fact Checks

We rate Newsmax Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of conspiracy theories and pseudoscience as well as numerous failed fact checks. (M. Huitsing 10/8/2017) Updated (02/28/2021)


This poll is for entertainment purposes and does not change our overall rating.

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

Video Advertisement

3.5 8 votes
Article Rating


This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

Newest Most Voted
Inline Feedbacks
View all comments
Sean Bohan

Your site, and the work of the journalists behind it, is essential for all people who want and need to be properly and fully informed. When I encounter news from any source unfamiliar to me, I check here right away to see if I should bother with the source.(Small confession: A guilty pleasure has been to go to the “tinfoil hat” sites for kicks.)


And who owns and who funds And who has the right to withhold any information/opinions/ideas being communicated. I am an adult, i will determine what information I think to be credible and not credible. So far MSM does not put any substance or context to any of their news around coronavirus, vaccines, or the Us election. Yet promotes them as unbias. Who fact checks the fact checkers? Why should anyone believe mediabiasfactcheck.


Mr Ruddy’s advertisers must like what he is doing and he feels like he is balancing the political scales.


Wow fact checkers should be fired complete lies can we say american propaganda

John Joseph Webb

I’m glad I don’t have to have a social media like Farcebook or Litter in order to make a comment. Your Fact checker is a Democrat!

John M Gilbert

I use this source to check out media sources for reliability. I also use Business Insider, Associated Press, Politifact, News and News, The Hill, BBC, and the New York Times. No one should rely on one source. However, when several give the same information it is food for thought. Media/Bias is a good site.

Cheryl Millard

I recommend your site 100% of the time. I have tried to also you as a learning aid when teaching people about biases as well as what constitutes a reputable source opposed to a source that has an agenda and not factual.

Last edited 3 months ago by Cheryl Millard
Robert Gleitz

Are the people who burned the Federal Courthouse in Portland this past summer being chased down at the same rate as the people are being chased down for the DC mess?


I’m a Trump supporter. Here’s my comment for what it’s worth.

First, you should modify the vote system you have in place to add ‘extreme left’ & ‘extreme right’. The vote currently only shows: Left, Center-Left, Center, Right, Center-Right. Great idea btw on letting the people contribute, that’s very right wing of you to empower the people with the freedom to participate. hugs

Second, IMO you shouldn’t demonize NewsMaxTV, nor should you demonize far left extreme news websites. Why? They offer a unique perspective; although flawed, I still want to read and hear from these news sources. Liberals tend to have an authoritarian itch and want to just flat out ban these sites, which makes me want to hear from them even more so.

I primarily watch CNN (Left), FOX (Right), and KTLA/VOA for unbiased (CENTER) facts. If I have more time I’ll check out the other left & right wing websites, then draw a conclusion. I’m a former Democrat, so maybe that’s why I try to listen to both sides so much.

Oh, one more thing. My country of origin is Iran. In Iran the citizens can’t own guns unless they have a permit. It’s almost impossible to own a gun in that country, and their government is extremely authoritarian and oppressive. Without weapons, they can’t fight back. I hope Democrats really think on this before supporting the ban of semi-auto rifles. You guys may be good people, but what if in 50 years we elect an actual tyrant into office and he takes full advantage of the countries lack of arms? Please do not ban semi-auto weapons, because Americans might need them one day to defend from an oppresive regime; learning from Iran as an example. Please learn from my perspective, having come to America from an extremely oppressive regime. Also, it’s very authoritarian for Big Tech to shut out their political opposition from the internet, that is something I’d expect the government of Iran to do, please don’t go down that path, thanks.

Lee Andrews

It’s an oddly common dynamic that an overwhelming percentage (%) of comments expressing negative, defensive, and/or, hate-filled content come from authors with so little self-esteem, and/or, self-confidence they must use a fake name, or worse yet, identify them self as “anonymous.”


Your citation of a NewsMax article stating that there is “no global warming” as proof that they peddle pseudo-science does not actually say that there is no global warming. It cites several claims of others questioning the degree of global warming, but it sources all of those citations.

While I haven’t done a deep dive on the list of failed fact checks, I looked at two of them.

One disputed something claimed by a third party that Newsmax reported ON (so the third party, not Newsmax, failed the fact-check).

The other rated a claim as rumor that the checker was unable to fact-check (so again Newsmax did not “fail” the fact check because no fact check was completed); however in the details of the Snopes article it seems clear that the claim was accurate. This one was interesting because the claim itself was not disputed, and the only thing offered to possibly question the claim was an official statement disputing (incorrectly described as “refuting”) that the undisputed facts constituted a violation of election law. The official dispute made the somewhat tortured claim that a campaign sign posted next to the door to the polling place was not within ten feet of the polling place (which would have been illegal) because the voting machines were actually located in an interior room more than ten feet from the door. So this also can’t reasonably be described as a “failed” fact check.

John Gibson

another rating based on a leftist pollster


This site is fake news

Faye Erickson

Love Newsmax except so many of the hosts talk TOO fast!