Last updated on July 26th, 2020 at 04:41 pm
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.
- Overall, we rate Red Blue Divide Questionable based on the promotion of one-sided right biased propaganda and a complete lack of transparency. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting, rather than Low, due to the occasional publication of news from credible sources.
Reasoning: Right Biased Propaganda, Complete Lack of Transparency
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
Founded in 2016, Red Blue Divide is a hyper-partisan conservative news and opinion website. The website has a hidden about page that states: “Redbluedivide was formed to promote actual discourse on hot button political topics. We believe that America’s intellectual roots are being destroyed by the growing bipartisanship that seeks to limit free speech and political differences. Redbluedivide wants to be the arena where all ideas can be discussed without fear of retaliation.”
Red Blue Divide offers a complete lack of transparency, with authors lacking bios, an about page that does not disclose their conservative bias, and zero indication of ownership/funding.
Funded by / Ownership
The website does not disclose ownership and revenue appears to be derived through advertising and link to a shop that sells Donald Trump Collectables.
Analysis / Bias
In review, Red Blue Divide does not publish original news reporting but rather re-writes original reporting from other sources and in some cases directly plagiarizing material without attribution. Headlines are typically sensationalized such as this: OOPS: CHRIS CUOMO’S ATTEMPT TO DISPROVE TRUMP BACKFIRES LIVE ON AIR, MOCKERY ENSUES. This story comes from the New York Post with some additional biased commentary added by the author. Red Blue Divide utilizes a combination of credible sources such as The Hill and sometimes Questionable sources such as the Daily Mail and the Gateway Pundit, both of whom have poor track records with fact-checkers. Editorially, story selection 100% favors the right and promotes pro-Donald Trump propaganda.
A factual search reveals they have not been fact-checked by an IFCN fact-checker, which is due to a lack of original content.
Overall, we rate Red Blue Divide Questionable based on the promotion of one-sided right biased propaganda and a complete lack of transparency. We also rate them Mixed for factual reporting, rather than Low, due to the occasional publication of news from credible sources. (D. Van Zandt 11/25/2019)