Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
I don't know about everyone else but it's pretty obvious that a bunch of America is trying to keep the conversation off of the unvaccinated because they're watching them die. They need other scapegoats.
I don't know about everyone else but it's pretty obvious that a bunch of America is trying to keep the conversation off of the unvaccinated because they're watching them die. They need other scapegoats.
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
If I recall, Fauci was instrumental in writing in the loop hole in Obama's viral 'gain of function' research funding ban which allowed US funding to continue to the Chinese Military Wuhan bio-weapons lab.
New documents appear to contradict Anthony Fauci's claims that the NIH did not fund gain-of-function research on bat coronaviruses at the Wuhan Institute of Virology.
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 Project Veritas Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of misleading videos and several failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: MediumTraffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2010, Project Veritas was created by James Edward O’Keefe III, an American conservative political activist. He produces secretly recorded undercover audio and video encounters, some selectively edited to imply its subjects said things they did not, with figures and workers in academic, governmental, and social service organizations, purporting to show abusive or allegedly illegal behavior by employees and/or representatives of those organizations. Project Veritas primarily targets liberals and liberal organizations.
[snip]
On April 7th Mr. Sullivan wrote back, “Thank you for deleting the hyperlink to Politifact’s article. It is greatly appreciated.” He also provided hyperlinks demonstrating that Project Veritas checks Republicans. We felt that was good information and added it to the analysis section below. Finally, on April 9th, after making the changes, Mr. Sullivan wrote, “I appreciate your indulging these requests which, in the end, seek the same goal as your website – to fact check. Your objectivity here is refreshing, and, once again, it is very much appreciated.”
We have not made any changes to this source page since that date. We find it ironic that doing the right thing and correcting mistakes is considered a badge a shame. Perhaps to Project Veritas, striving to be factual is not important, but to us, it is. We are not ashamed at all and proud of our record of correcting mistakes and errors. That is what credible sources do.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
James O’Keefe owns project Veritas. Funding primarily comes from donations. However, most of these donations come from the Donor’s Trust. The purpose of the Donor’s Trust Fund is to “safeguard the intent of libertarian and conservative donors.” In other words, it allows the source to receive funds without disclosing who they come from. Needless to say, most funding for Project Veritas comes from conservative and libertarian organizations.
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 Project Veritas Right Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of misleading videos and several failed fact checks.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT
Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA (45/180 Press Freedom)
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: MediumTraffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: LOW CREDIBILITY
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a website founded in 2015 by editor Dave Van Zandt. The website has been described as an amateur effort to rate news media sources based on +factual accuracy and political bias. Media Bias/Fact Check - Wikipedia
en.wikipedia.org
Alexandra Kitty, in a 2018 book on journalism, described MBFC as an apparent "amateur/civic outfit" and wrote that its founder's only qualification was a degree in communications.When Journalism was a Thing. Zero Books. p. 158.
The Columbia Journalism Review describes Media Bias/Fact Check as an amateur attempt at categorizing media bias and Van Zandt as an "armchair media analyst." The Poynter Institute notes, "Media Bias/Fact Check is a widely cited source for news stories and even studies about misinformation, despite the fact that its method is in no way scientific."
From person-to-person coaching and intensive hands-on seminars to interactive online courses and media reporting, Poynter helps journalists sharpen skills and elevate storytelling throughout their careers.
www.poynter.org
Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.
Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.
Before Dr. Albert Sabin's oral polio vaccine could wipe out the crippling disease worldwide, he set out to give it one final test in Cincinnati in April, 1960.
This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.
news-yahoo-com.cdn.ampproject.org
debatepolitics.com
www.poynter.org
www.wcpo.com
