LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
- Overall, we rate the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) as Least Biased due to its focus on impartial, data-driven global military and security analysis. We rate them High for factual reporting based on their credible sourcing from governmental, military, and academic institutions.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED
Factual Reporting: HIGH
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 1954, the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) is part of the U.S. Army War College and is the Army’s institute for geostrategic and national security research and analysis.
SSI’s mission is to provide rigorous research and analysis to support strategic-level decision-making within the Department of Defense and related organizations. SSI focuses on global security challenges, defense strategy, and military operations. Its publications include reports on various defense and international relations issues. The SSI operates under the U.S. Army’s mandate to enhance national security through research-driven insights. SSI is located at Carlisle Barracks, Pennsylvania.
Read our profile on USA media and Government.
Funded by / Ownership
The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI), part of the U.S. Army War College, is primarily funded by federal funds, with additional support provided by The U.S. Army War College Foundation.
Analysis / Bias
The Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) conducts in-depth analysis of geostrategic and national security matters, focusing on military strategy. The institute maintains a neutral stance in its research and provides well-sourced articles. For instance, “Peace and Unity: China’s Growing Military Footprint in Tanzania” includes detailed endnotes referencing academic papers, government reports, and international defense sources. The article also draws information from Chinese government-affiliated media platforms like Sina Finance, offering insights into China’s perspective. However, readers should be aware of potential biases in state-controlled media. SSI cross-references such sources with non-governmental analyses to provide a comprehensive view.
The second article, “At 75, NATO is Still Worth the Price”, by Dr. John R. Deni, is published on the SSI website but directs readers to the full commentary hosted by the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace. This reflects SSI’s practice of incorporating external expert sources to reinforce the depth and quality of its analysis. The article examines NATO’s successes and challenges, particularly in light of the evolving role of the U.S. in the alliance. SSI uses partnerships with credible organizations like Carnegie Europe to provide a well-rounded, factually supported discussion of global military and security issues.
SSI generally maintains a high factual reporting standard and demonstrates neutrality using well-supported research and expert partnerships on global security issues.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate the Strategic Studies Institute (SSI) as Least Biased due to its focus on impartial, data-driven global military and security analysis. We rate them High for factual reporting based on their credible sourcing from governmental, military, and academic institutions. (M. Huitsing 10/11/2024)
Source: https://ssi.armywarcollege.edu/
Last Updated on October 11, 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