How has rebelnews been rated by independent fact-checkers and media watchdogs?
Executive summary
Rebel News is broadly characterized by independent fact‑checkers and media‑rating aggregators as a right‑leaning outlet with mixed factual reliability: Media Bias/Fact Check labels it “Right” biased with “Mixed” factual reporting and low credibility due to promotion of conspiracy theories, poor sourcing and failed fact checks [1], and Ground News’ aggregation likewise reports a Right bias and a Mixed factuality score based on multiple ratings [2]. Major media‑watch repositories show uneven consensus—AllSides lists no definitive rating for its online coverage [3]—while academic and regulatory records have raised sharper criticisms about journalistic standards [4] [5].
1. How major media‑rating services classify Rebel News
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) situates Rebel News on the right of the political spectrum and flags its overall credibility as low, scoring its bias and factual reporting as Right (7.3) and Mixed (6.4) respectively, and explicitly lists promotion of propaganda, conspiracy theories, poor sourcing and several failed fact checks as the basis for that assessment [1]. Ground News, which aggregates multiple rating services including MBFC and Ad Fontes Media, reproduces a Right bias label and a Mixed factuality score for Rebel News by combining those independent evaluations [2]. By contrast, AllSides’ public page for Rebel News shows “Not Rated” for its Media Bias Meter, reflecting either a lack of a settled independent judgment from that organization or an absence of a finalized rating on AllSides’ platform for the outlet’s online content [3].
2. What watchdogs and regulators have found about content and standards
Beyond rating services, regulatory and judicial review records cited in public sources point to substantive concerns about Rebel News’ adherence to conventional journalistic practices: a Canada Revenue Agency review of 423 Rebel News items—referenced in court reporting and summarized on Wikipedia—found only 10 pieces met standards for original journalistic content, with 283 items judged “not based on facts” or lacking multi‑perspective reporting, and another 135 classified as curated or rewritten from other sources [4]. Academic literature and methodological studies of “fake news” and hyper‑partisan outlets likewise identify Rebel News as an example of coverage that is often characterized as controversial or misleading, noting that hyper‑partisan sites may report real events while framing them to manipulate readers’ views [5].
3. Patterns cited by fact‑checkers: conspiracy, sourcing, and activism
MBFC’s written reasoning explicitly cites patterns common to failed fact checks—promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience and propaganda, as well as poor sourcing—as the principal drivers of its assessment of Rebel News’ credibility [1]. Academic analyses and research summaries reinforce that assessment by placing Rebel News among outlets whose coverage is frequently qualified as misleading in studies of disinformation and hyper‑partisan media, which raises concerns about blending reporting with partisan advocacy [5].
4. Where ratings converge and where they diverge
There is convergence among multiple evaluators that Rebel News leans right and presents a mixed factual record: MBFC and Ground News align on bias and factuality [1] [2]. Divergence appears in the degree of formal adjudication—AllSides’ “Not Rated” entry indicates that not every major rating body has issued a definitive verdict on Rebel News’ online news output [3]—and judicial or regulatory findings, such as the CRA‑review results reported in public records, offer a more severe critique focused on journalistic standards rather than simple bias metrics [4].
5. What this means for consumers and next steps for researchers
Taken together, the assessments from MBFC, Ground News, AllSides’ lack of rating, academic studies, and regulatory review suggest that independent fact‑checkers and media watchdogs treat Rebel News as a partisan outlet with recurring factual and sourcing problems warranting article‑by‑article scrutiny rather than blanket trust—while also acknowledging that not all rating bodies have reached identical conclusions or published final ratings [1] [2] [3] [5] [4]. These sources document systemic concerns about accuracy and standards but also reflect varying methodologies and thresholds for labeling an outlet unreliable.