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 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 Russia vs. the World as left-biased and questionable due to its use of selective, one-sided reporting that aligns with anti-Russian perspectives. There is also a lack of transparency in ownership and funding, poor sourcing practices, unverified claims, and a failed fact check.
Detailed Report
Questionable Reasoning: Propaganda, Lack of Transparency, Poor Sourcing, Failed Fact Check
Bias Rating: LEFT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Russia vs. World is a website documenting alleged Russian actions in Ukraine and worldwide. The site features categories such as “War Crimes,” “Military,” and “Politics,” with a focus on exposing Russia’s influence, military actions, and what it describes as aggression. The site positions itself as an informational platform on geopolitical topics with a pro-Ukraine stance, emphasizing narratives from Baltic and Ukrainian perspectives on Russian activities.
The site does not have an About page or disclose where they are from.
Funded by / Ownership
Russia vs. World lacks clear ownership and funding disclosures. No direct information is available about who operates the platform or their affiliations.
Analysis / Bias
Russia vs. World presents a consistently anti-Russian stance with emotive language and selective sourcing. In “Mondelez Fuels Russian War Machine,” phrases like “moral betrayal” and “corporate ethics under the spotlight” amplify criticism of Mondelez for its Russian operations without citing any reference. Claims about CEO Dirk van de Put’s statements are presented but lack a citation, despite the context in the Chicago Tribune, where Van de Put discusses balancing business interests with ethics in complex regions. Also, notably, the claims about consumer backlash and ethical concerns reference a survey (without hyperlink) from PissedConsumer, a platform known for hosting unverified reviews.
Similarly, “Former UK Secretary of Defense Grant Shapps on the Beginning of the Global War” uses loaded phrases such as “existential test for the West” and “brink of global catastrophe” that amplify fear of escalation. It cites The Times but amplifies Shapps’s stance. The original Times article emphasizes strategic support for Ukraine and Taiwan, contrasting Russia vs. the World’s interpretation as a call to arms. This difference indicates selective framing, combined with strong emotive language, to influence readers by emphasizing heightened risks not directly stated by Shapps.
In general, the website holds left-leaning perspectives that criticize Trump and the far-right like this: Orbán Unleashed: Hungary’s PM Bets on Trump, Blasts EU, and Cozies Up to Kremlin in Shocking Speech.
Failed Fact Checks
- Zelensky stamp issued in Poland. – Misleading
Overall, we rate Russia vs. the World as left-biased and questionable due to its use of selective, one-sided reporting that aligns with anti-Russian perspectives. There is also a lack of transparency in ownership and funding, poor sourcing practices, unverified claims, and a failed fact check. (M. Huitsing 10/29/2024)
Source: https://russiavsworld.org/
Last Updated on October 29, 2024 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