Real Science (Goodsciencing.com)

Goodsciencing - Questionable - Right Bias - Conservative - Pseudoscience - Not CredibleFactual Reporting: Very Low - Biased - Not Credible - Fake News


QUESTIONABLE SOURCE

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 profit or influence (Learn More). Sources listed in the Questionable Category may be untrustworthy and should be fact-checked on a per-article basis. See all Questionable sources.

  • Overall, we rate Real Science (goodsciencing.com) right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of quackery level pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, propaganda, failed fact checks, and a complete lack of transparency.

Detailed Report

Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Pseudoscience, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Checks, Lack of Transparency
Bias Rating: EXTREME RIGHT
Factual Reporting: VERY LOW
Country: Unknown
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY

History

Launched in November 2021, Real Science (goodsciencing.com) is an anonymously published pseudoscience website that often publishes misleading or false claims. According to their about page, “A few people have been asking who we are, what our credentials are, and what we’re trying to prove. We are a small team of investigators, news editors, journalists, and truth seekers, now backed up by others, who are discovering pieces of information that we can investigate. It doesn’t really matter who we are. What really matters is that we care carrying on an investigation and we’re presenting the evidence we’ve found, almost all of it documented in mainstream media publications.”

Funded by / Ownership

GoodSciencing.com completely lacks transparency as they do disclose ownership. At this time, they do not appear to have a revenue stream.

Analysis / Bias

Real Science (goodsciencing.com) publishes summaries of news stories from other sources. They also sometimes link to other sources such as True Defender, which we rate as Questionable. The website’s primary focus is on government overreach and promoting disinformation regarding Covid-19 and vaccines. For example, in this story, 46 Children Killed By Pfizer COVID Vaccine in USA, they utilize Vaers as a source. Vaers is not considered reliable because anyone can make a claim.

In another example, they again make an unproven claim by utilizing Vaers 321 Athlete Cardiac Arrests, Serious Issues, 181 Dead, After COVID Shot. According to fact-checkers, this is not true. In general, the website aims to spread disinformation regarding the severity and Covid-19 and the unproven dangers of the Covid Vaccine.

Failed Fact Checks

Overall, we rate Real Science (goodsciencing.com) right biased and Questionable based on the promotion of quackery level pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, propaganda, failed fact checks, and a complete lack of transparency. (D. Van Zandt 12/18/2021)

Source:  https://goodsciencing.com/

Last Updated on December 18, 2021 by Media Bias Fact Check

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