Media Bias Fact Check has them at center-left alignment and high factual credibility, like the Washington Post and Guardian.

State-funded journalism - people complain of using taxpayers’ money

Journalism funded by private interests - people complain of bias

Journalism funded by customers - people complain of clickbait to sell more rags

Not sure what your comment is supposed to indicate. That they disclosed a source of funding when most aren’t even bothered to?

They detail the work they did with that grant money here:

https://www.journalismai.info/programmes/innovation/innovati...

Looks like it built an AI editing assistant with Google News and Polis.

What specific point are you trying to make, here? Do you think a news organization should not be acquiring tech tools? Do you think that state-funded journalism matters, in this context, or do you just think those are good bogeyman words?

Come on, be proud of your opinions. Don't hide behind scare quotes and insinuations. Don't be a coward.

If that’s your opinion, I don’t think you know what actual leftism is.

Sure you were. That's why your comment history is full of far right US politics posts, including anti-immigration.

I live in Australia and US trends reach us within 5-10 years. As a (legal) immigrant myself I'm not at all anti-immigration, I'm anti-unauthorized-immigration and anti-below-reasonable-wage-immigration.

И да, я родился в совке и вырос в его смердящих останках, не думал, что мне придётся это доказывать какому-то херу из интернета, притом что мне абсолютно насрать, как он оценит моё, основанное на личном опыте, мнение.

For an australian from the soviet union, you sure do have strong opinions about teachers getting H1b visas in the US.

Я тоже умею пользоваться программами для перевода.

Being born somewhere doesn't automatically grant you instant knowledge. For example most people in the mediterranean have no idea about all the history of the roman empire.

Those born in the actual roman empire and catching a glimpse of how awesome it was might have some clue right?

They could certainly tell you how they were doing, not really generic things about the entire empire no.

I don't think it qualifies you to judge the political spectrum in the UK as much as you think it does.

You realize it's a global publication with localized editions right?

Yes, I do.

Just neing born in USSR still gives no qualifications to qualify the Guardian within the political spectrum within the UK

They are social democrats and firmly left of centre. You won’t find anything remotely radical in the Grauniad.

It might not be radical, but the spin is everywhere, whether they are talking about industry trends, current events or gardening.

No, it’s not everywhere. Reporting is fair and accurate.

Everything fitting the leftist agenda will be accurately reported and spun upon, anything not fitting will be ignored. On top of reporting, plenty of opinion matter will be delivered, making it hardly fair.

The way the journalism business is going, open-source investigators and bloggers looking for clout will be the only independent media left.

Sounds like they had a legitimate question for the ambassador who reacted badly - which is no surprise for someone in this administration.

I just don't want to jump to any conclusion as I've never heard of this site nor these people before, for all I know they could be known for doing stunts or something.

Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well.

If you don't want to jump to conclusions, why then didn't you research a bit before posting?

Not lazy enough to keep quiet rather than spreading FUD.

> Though if this really happened as they say, it reflects very badly on Belgium as well.

Not so sure. If the security at the event said "these people are active threats to security", then its the police's job to remove the threat and then investigate.

However it should now be on those lying about it that made the accusation to prevent their evidence, and if that's not good enough then to revoke their diplomatic credentials.

If the event was a private function as it appeared to be, then removing them is fine, but from the report it sounds like more accusations were made then "these people are no longer allowed at our event", and like the boy who cried wolf, that's where the problem needs to be sorted.

When America is sending their diplomats they're not sending their best!

We used to send people who were concerned with building relationships. These days it sounds like we’re sending people to milk relationships dry.

So a long article about them being kicked out and all they detail about their own actions is that "we asked him about it"? I'm not sure what "tacitly threatened" means, either.

If they want sympathy, they probably should lay out the details of their actions more clearly. This just reads as some juveniles went to an event, tried to rile up an official (while filming the response in hopes of getting a juicy clip), then were surprised when they were kicked out.

They were not an active threat. It was simply a lie. They were in fact invited.

That does seem to be a trend in the stories becoming more about the journalists when the expected no comment response is given as if that was the true intent because of course they are not going to comment to hostile questions. In 2026, this is not news. We know what the administration is doing, so becoming the story is not the story they want it to be. They kept repeating "we were invited" as if that means something. While you can be invited, that invitation can be rescinded. At that point, you can't keep saying "we were invited" as a meaningful response to you being asked to leave regardless of why.

To me, it does feel a bit like some journos looking for clout. Kaitlan Collins is the poster child for this type abuse from Trump even if she's not being manhandled by police.

You rescind an invitation by (preferably kindly) asking the people in question to leave. Not by informing the police that they are an "active threat".

A natural question to ask – after their very legitimate and important questions have been answered!

(Or are you just trying to derail?)

Yes, they're a legitimate news organization. They are partially funded by the EU government.

Since when having a government fund your news organization is a good sign for legitimacy

PBS put out a lot of fantastic content. Sesame Street, Nova, Frontline, Nature, Reading Rainbow, News Hour...

Seems no better or worse than having privately funded news these days.

Well I would say that in this context legitimate means are they accepted by European society as "real journalists." The fact that the European government funds them does indicate that they aren't viewed by society as random crackpot bloggers.

Belgian here, never heard of them/the site

Belgian here with some knowledge of the EU-centric media operating out of Brussels.

They are legit but have a tiny audience, this accident made them instantaneously recognizable.

Good for them, we are all fed up with Politico (Axel Springer) + Euractiv (Mediahuis) duopoly.

P.S. This is just IMO, but De Wever should not have gone to the event, he lost a lot of political capital there. He should have given the ground to Theo Francken and Vansina to do their clown thing and instead he should have traveled 100km to the Florennes airbase to assist at BAFS-2026 that happened at the same time.

The European Correspondent is a legitimate, though young, news organization. I can recommend their newsletter, they write about a nice mix of topics from all across Europe.

Does it matter? Should they have been kicked out of an event they were invited to for asking a reasonable question? Why are you asking about a news organization and not an extremely fragile man-baby who can't take a tough question?

Many blogs will omit key facts. For example you could write "I was booted out for asking a question" when in actual fact you'd broken in with some wire cutters and then proceeded to pour champagne over all the soft furnishings.

A credible reporter for a credible outlet writing a credible article won't, whether that's the Washignton Post, the Daily Telegraph, or Le Monde, or if it's BBC, RTL, Al Jazzera.

So it's always worth asking "is this a credible source". It used to be fairly easy, to be a journalist you had to have significant backing from a significant institution.

There is literally a video linked in the source. How about you read the article next time.

"I believe every voxpop nonsense on youtube as long as it agrees with my original prejudices"

Given that they were invited to the event "as press" (did you even read the article?) it is safe to assume that they are credible reporters.

Many people on the internet lie.

Trump omits key facts and lies all the time. Also, the SCOTUS yesterday let stand a ruling that he is in fact a rapist.

Yes he does. I'm not sure what that has to do with anything.

If "Joe Bloggs" writes an article about how "antifa thugs" ejected him as a "legitimate journalist" from covering a DNC convention, when in actual fact he was a January 6th agitator who went in with a fake ID and tried to get back stage, he's not going to write the second part.

This outlet isn't widely known, it's reasonable to ask "is this something legitimate or some deranged muskovite on twitter". Had they been reporting for the Guardian or Al Jazzera that would be the initial level of legitimacy, as they weren't it's reasonable to ask "did this actually happen, did it happen like they say"

Just because a story matches your (and my) view of the world (that trump is a devastating danger to the world and to america that should have been in jail a decade ago) doesn't mean you can simply like/share/subscribe to any story which appears to fit that narrative

Now sure, a brief look around this site shows this isn't the typical youtuber/twitter shock-jock, but the question should be asked before you can establish the credentials of the reporter

Judge for yourself. Why are you asking other people to think for you?

The American embassy considers them to have sufficient legitimacy to invite them.

So American, is Bill White a trustworthy ambassador or a political donor looking for clout?

Do you ask this about all of the alt right slop artists that have been legitimized by the Trump admin? Or only about those who pose adversarial questions to the Trump administration?