Can I recommend you a browser extension called Media Bias Fact Check? You can get it on Firefox and Chrome and probably other Chromium browsers too. On Chrome it’s a featured extension while on Firefox it hasn’t been audited by Mozilla’s security team yet.
In any case, with MBFC installed, when you go to a website that it’s rated, it will display a little icon in your toolbar showing that publication’s bias or sometimes other info (such as “pro-science”, “satire”, “pseudoscience & conspiracy”). CounterPunch is rated as having a “left” bias. So evidently, CounterPunch is a major enough publication to be rated by MBFC, and not just some “random blog”. MBFC provides this detailed report.
TL;DR: CounterPunch is a highly credible source, though it is also controversial for several reasons. CounterPunch has never failed a fact check, but has sometimes failed to provide hyperlinked sources and indicate opinion, and has a clear left-wing bias in story choice and language use. It is a 501c3 non-profit which generates revenue through book sales, donations, grants, and advertising.
When you encounter an unfamiliar news source online, it can also be a good idea to see if it’s notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article might provide more useful information about the publication as well.
CounterPunch indeed is notable enough to have an English-language Wikipedia article. This article is thoroughly sourced, frequently edited, and has existed since December 21st, 2003 — making “CounterPunch” one of the first 500,000 articles to be published on Wikipedia, when Wikipedia was just under three years old… I feel like that says something about how notable CounterPunch is.
Can I recommend you a browser extension called Media Bias Fact Check? You can get it on Firefox and Chrome and probably other Chromium browsers too. On Chrome it’s a featured extension while on Firefox it hasn’t been audited by Mozilla’s security team yet.
In any case, with MBFC installed, when you go to a website that it’s rated, it will display a little icon in your toolbar showing that publication’s bias or sometimes other info (such as “pro-science”, “satire”, “pseudoscience & conspiracy”). CounterPunch is rated as having a “left” bias. So evidently, CounterPunch is a major enough publication to be rated by MBFC, and not just some “random blog”. MBFC provides this detailed report.
TL;DR: CounterPunch is a highly credible source, though it is also controversial for several reasons. CounterPunch has never failed a fact check, but has sometimes failed to provide hyperlinked sources and indicate opinion, and has a clear left-wing bias in story choice and language use. It is a 501c3 non-profit which generates revenue through book sales, donations, grants, and advertising.
When you encounter an unfamiliar news source online, it can also be a good idea to see if it’s notable enough to have a Wikipedia article. The Wikipedia article might provide more useful information about the publication as well.
CounterPunch indeed is notable enough to have an English-language Wikipedia article. This article is thoroughly sourced, frequently edited, and has existed since December 21st, 2003 — making “CounterPunch” one of the first 500,000 articles to be published on Wikipedia, when Wikipedia was just under three years old… I feel like that says something about how notable CounterPunch is.