Press Watch – Bias and Credibility

---

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 an appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.

• Overall, we rate Press Watch as left-biased due to its strong focus on critiquing mainstream media from a progressive viewpoint. We also rate them mostly factual rather than high due to their occasional use of factually mixed sources and lack of transparency regarding their funding sources. Despite this, they provide specific examples and well-argued critiques to support their analyses.

---

History

PressWatchers.org (Press Watch) was founded by journalist Dan Froomkin. Launched in 2019, the site aims to scrutinize media coverage of politics and public affairs and advocate for accountability and transparency in journalism. Froomkin, known for his critical analysis of mainstream media, has worked with The Huffington Post and The Intercept. PressWatchers.org operates as an independent, non-profit organization based in Washington, D.C.​ 

Read our profile on the United States media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

Press Watch is a 501(c)(3) non-profit organization funded by donations from readers and the philanthropic community. However, the website does not mention specific details regarding the philanthropic organizations providing grants.

Analysis / Bias

Press Watch exhibits a strong bias towards critiquing mainstream media, often emphasizing perceived failures and biases in their coverage. The site’s content frequently focuses on media accountability, transparency, and the need for more rigorous journalism, often from a progressive perspective.

For example, the article “Don’t treat Trump like he has no agency” criticizes the mainstream media’s coverage of Donald Trump, arguing that media outlets often portray his actions as inevitable rather than deliberate choices. The article cites specific examples from major news outlets, using a critical tone to highlight perceived shortcomings and biases. Sources include a New York Times article and other mainstream media examples like the Washington Post.​

In another article, “Every alarm bell in the planet is ringing right now—but political reporters aren’t listening,” Press Watch criticizes political reporters for failing to adequately connect climate change to the actions of fossil fuel companies and the inaction of Washington. The article emphasizes that merely connecting climate change to environmental disasters isn’t enough; it calls for the media to hold fossil fuel companies accountable for their emissions and criticize the lack of government action. Sources include the climate-crisis newsletter “Heated” by Arielle Samuelson and Emily Atkin, E&E News, CNN, NPR, and Resilience (Post Carbon Institute).

Typically, Press Watch exhibits a strong bias towards progressive critiques of mainstream media. The site often uses a mix of credible and factually mixed sources, alongside specific examples from news coverage, to support its arguments.

Failed Fact Checks

• None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Press Watch as left-biased due to its strong focus on critiquing mainstream media from a progressive viewpoint. We also rate them mostly factual rather than high due to their occasional use of factually mixed sources and lack of transparency regarding their funding sources. Despite this, they provide specific examples and well-argued critiques to support their analyses. (M. Huitsing 07/25/2024)

Source: https://presswatchers.org/

Last Updated on July 25, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check

---

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation

---

---

---

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