Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Has Blendr News been cited by reputable outlets or fact-checkers?
Executive summary
Available reporting shows Blendr News (aka The Blendr Report/Blendr News Substack and podcast) appears in platform listings and has drawn criticism in a Substack rebuttal, but I find no evidence in the supplied sources that major mainstream outlets or recognized fact‑check organizations (e.g., Reuters, AP, Snopes, PolitiFact) have cited or evaluated it directly (not found in current reporting) [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Who/what is “Blendr News”? — A small Substack/podcast operation
Blendr News identifies itself as a Substack newsletter whose stated goal is to “read between the lines” and direct readers to extended podcasts and articles; the brand also publishes a podcast called The Blendr Report, listed on Apple Podcasts and Spotify, and promotes social handles and sponsors in episode descriptions [1] [2] [3] [5]. These listings show a functioning independent publisher and show evidence of distribution via common platforms rather than a major newsroom affiliation [2] [3].
2. Where Blendr appears in third‑party catalogs and podcast directories
Podcast directories and third‑party aggregators list The Blendr Report and link it to Blendr News’ Substack; for example, Rephonic’s podcast profile and Apple Podcasts metadata include episode counts, creators’ names (Jonathan Harvey and Liam DeBoer) and promotional ties to the Substack channel [2] [3]. That kind of presence indicates the outlet is discoverable and reaching an audience but is different from being cited by established news organizations or professional fact‑checkers [2] [3].
3. Criticism and pushback — a Substack rebuttal flags misinformation concerns
A Substack post titled “Twisting the Facts: How Blendr News Spreads Disinformation on Trans Youth Care” accuses Blendr News of promoting misleading claims about gender‑affirming care and argues those claims are “factually inaccurate” and “dangerous,” citing peer‑review literature and other reporting in its rebuttal [4]. That response is an example of pushback from other writers and advocacy or community outlets, but it is not the same as an independent fact‑check published by a recognized fact‑checking organization [4].
4. No evidence in these results of mainstream or fact‑checker citations
Among the supplied sources, there are listings for other sites and databases (e.g., Media Bias/Fact Check search page) and unrelated items that mention many outlets by name, but none of the documents in this dataset show Reuters, AP, Snopes, PolitiFact, or other widely recognized fact‑checkers citing or formally evaluating Blendr News (available sources do not mention such citations) [6]. The Substack rebuttal is the closest thing in this collection to an external critique [4].
5. What this pattern implies about reputation and verification
Being present on podcast platforms and having an active Substack means Blendr News is an identifiable independent media actor with an audience; however, lacking citations or formal reviews from established fact‑checkers or major outlets in the provided reporting suggests it has not entered the mainstream verification ecosystem covered by these sources [1] [2] [3] [4]. That can mean either it hasn't produced stories that drew wide enough attention for such outlets to respond, or that responses exist outside the supplied set of sources (available sources do not mention which).
6. Competing perspectives and possible agendas
The Substack critique frames Blendr News as spreading harmful misinformation about trans youth care, an explicitly adversarial stance that reflects an advocacy or corrective agenda [4]. Blendr’s own “about” copy and podcast metadata present itself as independent commentary and “reading between the lines,” an editorial positioning that typically seeks skeptical or contrarian angles [1] [3]. Readers should note those differing motives: the critic aims to correct alleged factual errors and public‑health harms, while Blendr presents itself as alternative commentary seeking attention and subscribers [4] [1].
7. How to proceed if you need authoritative verification
If you want to know whether mainstream fact‑checkers or major newsrooms have evaluated specific Blendr News claims, consult the databases and sites of major fact‑checkers (e.g., Snopes, PolitiFact, Reuters Fact Check, AP Fact Check) or search news archives directly; the current set of provided sources does not include such citations and therefore cannot confirm them (available sources do not mention such citations) [6] [4].
Limitations: This analysis relies only on the search results you supplied; I do not assert whether citations exist outside these sources and have flagged where the dataset is silent (available sources do not mention X) [6] [1] [2] [4] [3].