Spread the love


by Sharon Rondeau

(Oct. 6, 2019) — On Sunday morning, reader Robert Laity advised us of a website calling itself “mediabias/factcheck” (MBFC) containing an entry for “The Post and Email” claiming that the website is on the “extreme” and of “right bias,” it does not “source” its information “well,” and that its “factual reporting” is “mixed.”

An original review of The Post & Email, the website states, is dated August 23, 2016, with an update issued on February 25, 2017.

MBFC contains a disclaimer stating that its information “is for general information purposes only and is the opinion of individual reviewers for Media Bias/Fact Check. The opinions expressed on Media Bias/Fact Check are protected under “Fair Comment.” The information is provided by Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) and while we endeavor to keep the information up to date and correct, we make no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, about the completeness or accuracy of opinions/information on the website for any purpose. Any reliance you place on such information is therefore strictly at your own risk.

The owner is Dave Van Zandt, who reports he is employed in the health care field but has been a media observer “over the years.” The website says it gathers some of its “fact checks” and news articles from the International Fact Checking Network (IFCN).

For revenue, it displays Google ads and has a presence on Patreon, a subscriber platform. Its methodology for determining media bias is stated as:

When determining bias, there isn’t any true scientific formula that is 100% objective. There are objective measures that can be calculated, but ultimately there will be some degree of subjective judgement to determine these. On each page we have put up a scale with a yellow dot that shows the degree of bias for each source. Each page also has a “detailed report” section that gives some details about the source and an explanation of their bias. When calculating bias we are not just looking at political bias, but also how factual the information is and if they provide links to credible, verifiable sources. Therefore, the yellow dot may indicate political bias or how factual a source is, or in many cases, both.

The organization accepts recommendations from the public on “sources.”

To the question, “Are your ratings objective?” the website responds:

All sources are rated objectively using our methodology which calculates a score. However, every source on this website has been reviewed by a human being, who certainly does have bias. This means that a different reviewer using our methodology may come up with a slightly different score. Our testing has concluded that people from different political affiliations have similar scores once they understand how to apply the methodology. So, the answer is ratings are somewhat subjective.

To the question, “Why do you have more Right Wing sources listed?” the response is:

The first 500 or so sources reviewed were picked by the reviewers and were mostly balanced. The last 2000+ sources added have been submitted by users. We have found that right wing sites are submitted for review more. Significantly more! We review what we get. We would love to have more left wing sites submitted for review to provide more balance. Further, prior to and after the election of 2016 there was an explosion of fake right wing websites, many of which originate in the country of Macedonia. We have added several hundred of these sites to our questionable list, which leads to far more right wing sites being listed at this time.

The site changes its categorization of sources based on reviews which it publishes here.  One of those changes moved “Lawfare” from “left-center” to “least biased.”

After reviewing MediaBiasFactCheck at length and its rating of The Post & Email’s editor/owner contacted website personnel through its online form and by emailing its editor directly, stating:

Hello, I am owner/editor of The Post & Email, an online newspaper which you have rated as possessing “extreme” right-leaning media bias.

First of all, you have expressed our company name incorrectly. Rather than using the word “and,” there should be an “&.”

Further, you claim, without evidence, that we do not “source well.” On what is that statement based, and on what do you base your qualifications to make such a determination? I consider the statements defamatory and may consider taking further steps to correct it given that all of our articles are extremely heavily-sourced to firsthand accounts and eyewitnesses, mainstream media reporting, court transcripts and judicial opinions, and to statements from the government itself. We often publish documents we receive from government entities and always note when they are unresponsive to our attempts to obtain information or comment to obtain both sides of a story.

Some examples are:

Shelby County, TN: Horrific Beating Reported by Jail Inmate


Tennessee Father Details Law Enforcement’s Cover-Up of Alleged Child Abuse


Obama Birth Certificate, Origins Continue to Pique Readers’ Interest


Multiple Sources Have Reported Obama “Born in Kenya”

Despite your disclaimer, I would appreciate a response and corrective action to my complaint seeing as your statement about sourcing is completely untrue.  You might not care for our content, but that does not mean that we do not do our due diligence.

Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email
P.O. Box 113
Canterbury, CT  06331-0113

At 11:41 a.m., we received a response from Van Zandt:

Hi Sharon,

Thanks for the information. We will absolutely re-review the website. The current review was done a few years ago in our old format. We will update it accordingly.


Dave Van Zandt
Owner/Editor in Chief
Media Bias Fact Check LLC

The Post & Email then responded:

Thank you, Dave.  I am writing an article about it now which I believe you will find balanced and will include your response.  I will send you a link when it is published.
Sharon Rondeau, Editor
The Post & Email

Join the Conversation


Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

  1. Fact: Two documents that I know of exist that claim that aka Obama was born in Hawaii.
    Fact: Two documents that I know of exist that claim that aka Obama was born in Kenya.
    Truth: No verifiable background document exists as to the true location of aka Obama’s nativity.
    Truth: No verifiable document exists as to the true name of the person that occupied the White House from Noon January 20, 2009 thru Noon January 20, 2017.

  2. Fact Check vs. Truth Check? Really?! Now there’s a concept. Scripture states that darkness will never overcome the light. It states sin has a season, but it will not overcome the light but
    requires a payment.

    My personal saying is why lie when the truth is much more effective. Perception and reality are not the same thing.

    In regards to Obama own “life story claims” I nor others can state for sure who or what
    he was or is. First he had claimed to have been born in Kenya and then born in Hawaii.
    Which one is it really? Didn’t Obama seal “all” his records? Why? Didn’t he claim that his
    administration would be the most transparent? It wasn’t… Why did he present two fabricated BC’s. With the ID documents he submitted and his various claimed credentials
    he wouldn’t pass a basic background check ot serve in the military or other employment.

    Debunked? Not!

  3. From “Media Bias/Fact Check – The Most Comprehensive Media Bias Resource”

    The Post & Email

    Excerpt from the second paragraph under Analysis / Bias
    “In the last category, Obama Birth Certificate, the website continues to report on the debunked claim that Former President Obama is not a citizen.”

    That is an outright lie, and all too typical of pro-Obama bias by the left. I’ve been a reader of/comment poster on “The Post & Email” from its inception and I can’t recall it ever reporting that former (P)resident Obama is not a citizen, not a “natural born citizen” yes, but not that he is not a citizen.

    I found this interesting. Under “Help Us Fact Check” is the following: With so many sources in our database we simply can’t keep up with reviewing all fact checks for our listed sources. You can help Media Bias / Fact Check stay up-to-date and accurate in our ratings by submitting sources that have recently failed fact checks. We will only accept fact checks that were done by signatories of the International Fact Checking Network. Please review the list below before submitting:” While “Politifact”,”Snopes” and “The Washington Post Fact Checker” are on that list the SCOTUS is not.

  4. Media Bias breaks the Post & Email stores into four categories:

    “The website breaks news down into 4 categories: US Government Corruption, Grand Juries, Horse Protection Act and Obama Birth Certificate. In general news reporting in the first three categories tends to be factual and mostly sourced properly. In the last category, Obama Birth Certificate, the website continues to report on the debunked claim that Former President Obama is not a citizen.”

    IMO, they are wrong about the number of story categories. But at least they put the ampersand in the name.

  5. Looks like they updated their article about this site.

    “Overall, we rate the Post & Email Questionable based on Far Right Biased story selection/editorials as well as the promotion of conspiracy theories regarding liberals, promotion of pseudoscience regarding climate change and use of poor sources or lack of hyperlinked sourcing. (8/23/2016) Updated (D. Van Zandt 10/06/2019)”

    “Special Note: On 10/6/2019, Ms. Rondeau contacted us via email concerning the previous evaluation in which we ranked the Post & Email right biased and mixed for factual reporting. Specifically, our lack of evidence regarding the use of poor sources and a borderline extreme right designation. As per our policy we re-reviewed the source and made appropriate changes according to our methodology.”