QUESTIONABLE SOURCE
A questionable source exhibits one or more of the following: extreme bias, consistent promotion of propaganda/conspiracies, poor or no sourcing of 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 Military Watch Magazine Right-Center Biased and Questionable based on the promotion of pro-Russian propaganda and a complete lack of transparency regarding who is in charge of the website and where they originate.
Many articles are republished on strangemilitarystories.com and usually contain emotionally loaded language, such as “Seven Years Since Russia’s Military Intervention to Thwart NATO in Syria: A Very Different War to Ukraine.” A quote from the article reads. “Russia’s military operation in Syria is widely considered one of the most successful in the country’s history with minimal losses and objectives secured quickly and efficiently.”
Another aspect of Military Watch Magazine is they do not list author information for articles published on the website, which presents a lack of transparency and makes it difficult to verify the information. For example, although they provide a hyperlink to credible sources like Reuters and N.Y. Times, there is no author information.
Military Watch Magazine - Bias and Credibility - Media Bias/Fact Check
Its origin is either India or Iran according to Reddit: How Credible or Non-Credible is Military Watch Magazine?
Also they have 400 followers on Twitter, these guys have zero legit sources in Europe, Lol.
