RedOrbit

RedOrbit - Factual Reporting: Mixed - Not always Credible or Reliable


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 the purpose of 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 RedOrbit Questionable based on a lack of transparency and poor sourcing techniques. We are not rating this source for bias as they stick to science.

Detailed Report

Factual Reporting: MIXED
Country: USA
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180

History

Founded in 2002, RedOrbit is a website that publishes space, science, health, and technology news. According to their about page “RedOrbit.com is committed to providing stimulating, original content and presentation, with over 2,000,000 pages covering the vast ideological spectrums of space, science, health, and technology.”

The website lacks transparency as they do not disclose an editor although it seems all articles are published by Heidi, provide information on authors, or disclose ownership.

Read our profile on United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership  

RedOrbit does not disclose ownership and revenue is derived through advertising.

Analysis / Bias

In review, RedOrbit publishes news related to space, science, tech, and health. Most stories are summaries that are not always sourced, but frequently use minimally loaded words such as this Washington State Uses Starlink to Assist With Combating Wildfires. For the most part, many stories are not sourced properly. When it comes to reporting on Science, which is their genre, they generally are pro-science and align with the consensus such as this, GMOs are safe to consume, study says. In general, the content on RedOrbit is pro-science and appears factual, however, there is such a lack of transparency and poor sourcing that we rate this source questionable. If this source upgraded their transparency they could attain a pro-science designation.

Failed Fact Checks

  • None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate RedOrbit Questionable based on a lack of transparency and poor sourcing techniques. We are not rating this source for bias as they stick to science. (D. Van Zandt 11/27/2016) Updated (10/17/2020)

Source: https://www.redorbit.com/

Last Updated on October 17, 2020 by Media Bias Fact Check

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/redorbit/
mediabiasfactcheck.com
crawl=CC-MAIN-2022-49
178253
application/http; msgtype=response
sha1:5B2TOSUGD2JHY4YNMCHIN43R23AAGYFK
<urn:uuid:b2f7013a-a33e-4c7f-afa1-f8d5f18b6218>
2022-12-08T17:39:24Z
192.0.78.188
text/html
sha1:Q2YR7JPGRAMZBUEHDTJTSRSXZB7GNL52
<urn:uuid:678e0519-6b72-4756-8242-ba5cfc0df96a>
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/redorbit/
response
<urn:uuid:bc4041e6-9c00-49b0-8ff7-da38007201b8>
isPartOf: CC-MAIN-2022-49
publisher: Common Crawl
description: Wide crawl of the web for November/December 2022
operator: Common Crawl Admin (info@commoncrawl.org)
hostname: ip-10-67-67-149
software: Apache Nutch 1.19 (modified, https://github.com/commoncrawl/nutch/)
robots: checked via crawler-commons 1.4-SNAPSHOT (https://github.com/crawler-commons/crawler-commons)
format: WARC File Format 1.1
conformsTo: https://iipc.github.io/warc-specifications/specifications/warc-format/warc-1.1/