Breaking911
Bias and Reliability

A clear example of expediency bias is the article “No Charges For Biden in Classified Docs Case: Reports.” The headline uses the word “Reports” to hedge the claim, citing the Wall Street Journal as the underlying source rather than direct confirmation. The accompanying photo shows Biden looking tense alongside an oversized folder, an image choice that can be read as framing the story around scandal and concealment rather than legal resolution, even though the article itself reports that no charges are expected:

“Special Counsel Robert Hur will not file charges related to the mishandling of classified documents at two locations associated with President Joe Biden, the Wall Street Journal reported Thursday, citing sources.”

The visual presentation may conflict with the article’s actual content, the kind of expediency bias Biasly’s metrics are designed to flag. A single image isn’t enough to show a pattern; you’d need to compare how Breaking911 illustrates similar stories about figures from both parties.

A different pattern shows up in the article “Jan. 6 ‘Qanon Shaman’ is Running for Congress.” The piece reports factually on Jacob Chansley’s congressional bid and recounts his role in the January 6 Capitol riot, his guilty plea, and his prison sentence in a relatively neutral, fact-forward tone in the passages examined. The article summarizes:

“Jacob Chansley has formally submitted documents to run as a libertarian in Arizona’s 8th Congressional District.”

The article does not editorialize about Chansley’s politics or his fitness for office, instead presenting the facts of his case and his current candidacy without framing in either direction. This is a good example of Breaking911 functioning as a straightforward aggregator rather than an opinion-driven outlet.

By contrast, “North Dakota Politician Charged With Traveling to Czech Republic for Sex With Minor” shows how Breaking911 handles a politically sensitive crime story. The article identifies Raymon Holmberg as a “former Republican North Dakota State Senator,” bracketing his party affiliation directly in the text. Identifying a politician’s party is standard journalistic practice. Here, however, the article reproduces the Department of Justice release almost word for word and inserts “[Republican]” in brackets into the official text, which can be read as added emphasis rather than an incidental detail. Whether Breaking911 applies this same consistent practice across politicians of both parties in similar stories is worth tracking over time.

Talarico Exposed Courting CAIR-Linked Islamic Groups in Texas https://t.co/8dRZiNdxBO

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) October 19, 2026

Trump appears to have changed his nickname for ‘Laffin” Kamala Harris, it’s now ‘Dumb as a Rock’ Kamala Harris pic.twitter.com/OciZCuZG2H

— Breaking911 (@Breaking911) July 22, 2024

Because Breaking911 articles carry the house byline “B911” rather than a named reporter, the outlet’s own X account serves as its institutional voice rather than an individual author profile. Its posts push breaking headlines to followers within minutes, often as raw statements with little context. In posts like the July 2024 one above, which repeats Donald Trump’s “Dumb as a Rock” nickname for Kamala Harris with a laughing emoji, the account’s own voice is mocking toward Democratic figures. The October 2026 post above uses the word “Exposed” in its headline about Texas Democrat James Talarico, presenting the claim as revealed wrongdoing rather than an allegation. That tone matches the right-leaning framing in some headlines, even though articles such as the QAnon Shaman report stay neutral.

Overall, Breaking911’s news coverage shows an inconsistent pattern rather than a single ideological direction: straightforward reporting on some politically charged stories, more loaded visual and headline framing on others, and added emphasis on party affiliation in at least one crime story. Readers who are aware of these patterns will be better equipped to read individual Breaking911 articles critically.

Analysis of Breaking911 Opinion Articles

Breaking911 does not have a clearly labeled opinion section in the way that many traditional sources do. Nearly all of its content is presented as straightforward news, including stories that carry no individual byline beyond “B911.”

The closest the outlet comes to an editorial voice is its own self-branding. On its website and social media, Breaking911 describes itself as “America’s #1 Alternative News Source,” a tagline that frames its mission as opposing mainstream media rather than as a neutral wire service. That self-positioning is a form of bias signal; before anyone reads an article, it signals that the outlet will push back against the establishment narrative, regardless of which direction that pushback comes from on any given story.

This distinguishes Breaking911 from outlets where opinion bias is concentrated with consistent ideological track records. This means its bias operates at the level of branding, story selection, and headline writing, rather than through individual columnist viewpoints, since the outlet does not maintain named opinion writers.

Analysis of Reliability in Breaking911’s Online News Articles

Breaking911 aims to deliver breaking news as quickly as possible, so much of its political content is a lightly edited official press release, a wire summary, or a short update. Reliability therefore varies by story: it depends heavily on whatever source the outlet is republishing. Readers can check individual articles with Biasly’s Bias Check Chrome Extension.

The Breaking911 article “North Dakota Politician Charged With Traveling to Czech Republic for Sex With Minor” is presented as a brief breaking-news report rather than an opinion piece. The article summarizes the federal indictment of former North Dakota State Senator Raymon Everett Holmberg and reproduces, almost word for word, a news release from the U.S. Department of Justice, credited in the dateline as “(DOJ)”. There is very little commentary or interpretation added. The tone remains factual and straightforward, although the headline emphasizes the seriousness of the allegations to capture readers’ attention. Overall, the article demonstrates a mostly neutral reporting style while focusing on a criminal case involving a former Republican state senator.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

The article contains no direct quotes from any individuals. Instead, the article republishes the Department of Justice’s announcement of the federal indictment. Because there are no verbatim quotations from investigators, prosecutors, defense attorneys, or the defendant, readers must rely on the government’s own summary of the charges.

Rather than direct quotations, this article depends on publicly available legal records. Since the information comes directly from the federal indictment and official Department of Justice materials, the article’s core facts are verifiable despite not including any direct quotations. However, including statements from prosecutors or defense attorneys would have provided readers with additional context.

On linked sourcing, the article uses very few identifiable sources. There are no external hyperlinks within the article itself, and nearly all of the information comes from the official Department of Justice announcement describing the federal indictment. By political classification, the article links to no external sources (0 Left, 0 Center, 0 Right); its single underlying source, the Department of Justice, is an institutional reference. Rather than presenting multiple viewpoints, the article simply summarizes publicly available court allegations and procedural facts.

• U.S. Department of Justice, federal agency whose news release is reproduced (institutional reference)
• Federal grand jury, charging body that returned the indictment (institutional reference)
• U.S. District Court for the District of North Dakota, federal court handling the case (institutional reference)
• Raymon Everett Holmberg, former Republican North Dakota State Senator and defendant (Right)

The sourcing is limited but appropriate for the type of story being reported. Nearly every factual claim originates from official government documents rather than political commentators or advocacy organizations. There are no competing political viewpoints because the article is reporting the filing of criminal charges rather than debating a political issue. Since the Department of Justice provides nearly all of the factual information, institutional sources dominate both the prominence of the article and the total amount of information presented.

In terms of source usage, the article presents the government’s allegations while also noting that Holmberg entered a not guilty plea and that a trial date was scheduled. This helps distinguish accusations from convictions and provides readers with important legal context. The article does not speculate about guilt, criticize either side, or introduce partisan commentary. Because the reporting relies almost entirely on official court records and avoids editorial language beyond the headline, the author’s overall bias is best classified as Center. Although Breaking911 is generally considered a right-leaning publication, this specific article remains largely factual and avoids ideological framing.

On factual accuracy, the article is consistent with reporting from other major news organizations, including the Associated Press and North Dakota broadcasters such as KFGO and KVRR. These outlets similarly reported that a federal grand jury indicted Raymon Everett Holmberg on charges of child sex tourism and receipt of child pornography, that the alleged conduct occurred between 2011 and 2016, and that Holmberg entered a not guilty plea during his initial court appearance. Holmberg later pleaded guilty to the travel charge, according to the AP.

While Breaking911 provides fewer details than larger news organizations, the factual information presented aligns closely with publicly available court records and other independent reporting. The article is therefore factually accurate, although its brevity leaves out additional background that readers might find in more comprehensive coverage.

In contrast, “Arizona’s Dem Attorney General Announces Election Charges Against Two Republican Officials” (November 29, 2023) republishes a news release from Arizona Attorney General Kris Mayes and contains one quoted statement, split into two passages of 9 and 36 words (average 22.5). Like the North Dakota story, it has no external links (0 Left, 0 Center, 0 Right), and the only voice quoted is the official announcing the charges. The headline adds the “Dem” label to the attorney general, while the body is the official release. A day later, the outlet republished a Texas Attorney General Ken Paxton release on a lawsuit against Pfizer in the same way, which suggests the press-release format is typical of its political coverage.

“The repeated attempts to undermine our democracy are unacceptable,”

• Kris Mayes, Arizona Attorney General (Democrat) quoted announcing the charges (Left)
• Arizona Attorney General’s Office, investigating agency and source of the release (institutional reference)
• Arizona State Grand Jury, body that returned the indictment (institutional reference)
• Maricopa County Superior Court, court where the indictment was filed (institutional reference)
• Arizona Secretary of State’s Office, office whose canvass was allegedly delayed (institutional reference)
• Peggy Judd and Tom Crosby, Republican Cochise County Supervisors and defendants (Right)

Selection and Omission Bias

Selection and omission bias at Breaking911 shows up most clearly in how political identifiers are added to stories, though the articles reviewed label both parties: the Arizona headline adds “Dem” to the attorney general, while the North Dakota story adds “[Republican].” The North Dakota Senator article clearly brackets Raymon Holmberg’s party affiliation as “Republican” directly within the quoted DOJ summary, inserting an editorial detail into what is otherwise a direct government document excerpt.

Whether Breaking911 applies this same bracketed-party-identification practice consistently to politicians of both parties facing comparable allegations is something readers should watch for across the outlet’s broader coverage; selective emphasis on party affiliation, even when factually accurate, can shape how readers perceive stories.

A different kind of selection bias shows up in the Biden classified documents story. The headline’s “Reports” correctly attributes the news to the Wall Street Journal, but the accompanying photo of a tense Biden beside oversized folders creates tension between the visual presentation and the outcome described in the text. In the articles reviewed, this kind of image-and-substance mismatch is worth watching across Breaking911’s political coverage.

Breaking911 is aimed at readers who want to know what happened right now, often before context or verification has caught up. Pew’s data show that social media, where Breaking911 has most of its reach, is the first stop for about one in five adults during breaking news. The data do not show who reads Breaking911, but its speed-first model helps explain the reliability concerns documented below.

Breaking911 is an outlet optimized for breaking news at maximum speed, which can come at the cost of sourcing rigor, as the Chattanooga case below shows. As one of the more widely followed social-media-native news aggregators in the country, Breaking911 can shape what its followers believe they know in the critical first hours after a major news event. This article examines Breaking911’s editorial tendencies to explore whether, and how bias shows up in an outlet built around speed, virality, and an explicitly “alternative” brand identity.

Is Breaking911 Biased?

Based on Biasly’s evaluations, Breaking911 is rated as Somewhat Right.

By examining content patterns and the broader context of media influence, we aim to offer a balanced perspective on Breaking911’s political bias—and contribute to the ongoing discussion about bias in the news.

How Does Biasly Rate News Sources?

Biasly uses proprietary algorithms and a team of analysts to provide comprehensive bias evaluations across thousands of news outlets. Over 200,000 articles from more than 3,200 sources have been analyzed to identify the most accurate and unbiased stories.

Biasly assigns each outlet three key scores:

• Reliability Score – Reflects factual accuracy
• AI Bias Score – Generated via natural language processing
• Analyst Bias Score – Assessed by human political analysts

These scores are based on seven core metrics: Tone, Tendency, Diction, Author Check, Selection/Omission, Expediency Bias, and Accuracy. These elements help analysts and algorithms evaluate the political attitude conveyed by each article.

Biasly’s Bias Meter ranges from -100% (most left) to +100% (most right), with 0% indicating neutrality. The system evaluates individual articles based on political terms, policies, figures, and sentiment to calculate precise bias ratings.

Is Breaking911 Politically Biased?

Breaking911 earns a Somewhat Right rating for its AI Bias Score and a Somewhat Right for its Analyst Bias Score. The Analyst Bias Score is generated by reviewers from liberal, moderate, and conservative backgrounds.

Breaking911 presents an unusual case for analysts since much of its content is republished or lightly edited rather than originally written, and its self-branding as an “alternative” outlet doesn’t map cleanly onto a left-right axis. Much of its political coverage consists of republished press releases from officials of both parties, such as Democratic and Republican state attorneys general, while its social media posts and headline choices carry more of its own voice.

In the articles reviewed here, that lean is most visible in the outlet’s own social media posts and in editorial choices such as the party label inserted into the North Dakota Senator story, rather than in sustained commentary.

How to Evaluate Bias

Although Biasly rates Breaking911 as Somewhat Right, it’s important to remember that bias can vary from article to article. Breaking911 also covers a wide range of topics with objectivity on many issues. This complexity underscores the importance of examining each article individually. So, let’s learn how to evaluate media bias.

Recognizing media bias requires awareness and critical thinking. Often, readers trust news sources that affirm their existing beliefs—a psychological tendency known as confirmation bias. This makes it harder to identify slanted narratives or one-sided reporting.

To address this, it’s essential to challenge your assumptions by consulting multiple perspectives and verifying information through third-party analysis. Tools like Biasly’s media bias ratings allow readers to compare the same news story across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, bias isn’t always a matter of what is said—it’s also about what is left out, how topics are framed, and which stories are chosen for coverage. Learning to recognize these patterns can help readers make more informed decisions and develop greater media literacy.

To start comparing news outlets and gain a better understanding of bias, sign up for Biasly’s Media Bias & News Analytics Platform to see how stories vary between sources.

So How Does Breaking911 Fare in Its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly assesses both accuracy and trustworthiness. Breaking911 currently holds Limited Reliability Score, which is calculated as a weighted average of:

• Fact Analysis Score – Evaluates the accuracy of claims, facts, and evidence.
• Source Analysis Score – Assesses the number, diversity, and credibility of sources and quotes used.

Breaking911’s Source Analysis Score is Limited at 28% Reliable. This suggests moderate trustworthiness in its sourcing practices. The score is AI-generated and considers quote length, frequency, diversity, and quality.

The Fact Analysis Score of Breaking911 is Pending at N/A. This further shows how well Breaking911 supports its claims, addresses selection and omission bias, and presents verifiable evidence.

While Breaking911 leans toward factual reporting, occasional lapses—such as unbalanced viewpoints or incomplete data—can affect its reliability rating. These nuances emphasize the importance of analyzing individual articles.

Breaking911’s Accuracy and Reliability

According to Biasly’s analysis, Breaking911 maintains Limited Reliability Score, but individual articles may vary significantly. Let’s dive into the details.

The two most common reliability concerns in Breaking911’s coverage are:

• Selection Bias – choosing which details, like party affiliation or a photo, to highlight within otherwise factual reporting
• Source Verification Gaps – republishing claims from secondary or unverified sources without independent fact-checking, as in the Chattanooga shooting case described above.

The Biden classified documents article and the North Dakota Senator story show possible selection bias in different forms, one through an image that clashes with the outcome reported, the other through bracketed emphasis on party affiliation inserted into a republished government release. The Chattanooga case is a clear example of the second concern: it wasn’t fabrication, but a failure to verify a questionable secondary source before republishing it as fact.

By contrast, the Jan. 6 “QAnon Shaman” article and the North Dakota indictment story both report well-documented facts (court records and a federal indictment) with minimal added framing.

Its reliability is strongest when it draws on primary government and legal documents, and most at risk when it relies on unverified outside claims, as in the Chattanooga case. Readers who use Biasly’s News Bias Checker to compare how Breaking911 covers a story against other outlets will get a clearer sense of when the outlet is functioning as a reliable aggregator versus when it’s adding its own framing.

So, is Breaking911 Reliable?

Overall, Breaking911 can be considered to be an outlet that is minimally reliable. It demonstrates a consistent goal of journalistic integrity and typically supports claims with sources and quotes. Occasional omissions and framing bias do appear, particularly on culturally sensitive or partisan issues.

As media literacy improves, readers can more easily detect issues with selection bias, omission bias, and factuality. To strengthen your ability to assess reliability across the political spectrum, use Biasly’s News Bias Checker to compare how multiple outlets report the same story.

This empowers you to consume more accurate, balanced, and dependable news.

Policy and Issue Framing

Breaking911’s framing on specific policy issues tends to follow whichever government source or wire report it’s drawing from in a given story, rather than reflecting a consistent editorial position of its own. This pattern is visible in its republished releases from both Democratic and Republican state attorneys general, which keep the language of the office making the announcement.

This matters for readers because it means Breaking911’s apparent “lean” on any given story often says more about which official source it’s summarizing than about a fixed editorial philosophy at the outlet itself.

Coverage and Relevance

Breaking911’s model of rapid aggregation paired with explicit “alternative news” branding represents a distinct category of media bias worth understanding: bias that emerges from self-positioning, headline choices, and selective emphasis rather than from sustained ideological commentary. As more readers get news through social-media-native outlets like Breaking911 rather than traditional newsrooms, understanding this kind of structural bias is increasingly relevant to media literacy.

Readers who want to see how Breaking911’s framing compares to other outlets can visit Biasly’s Media Bias Chart to analyze tone and word choice in real time.

Who Funds Breaking911?

Breaking911 does not publish information about its finances, so its revenue mix cannot be independently assessed. Its reach is built mainly on social media: BNO News reported in 2022 that the X account had nearly 1 million followers, with more than 770,000 more across Instagram and Facebook. Like other social-media-native outlets, it has a commercial incentive to prioritize speed and engagement.

Related Tools and Resource Pages

To better understand how Breaking911 fits into the broader media landscape, we recommend exploring these helpful resources:

• Media Bias Chart: See where Breaking911 ranks among hundreds of media outlets across the political spectrum.
• Political Bias Chart: Visualize political slants of news sources across various policy areas.
• Journalist Bias Analytics Platform: Explore how individual journalists contribute to bias within their publications.
• Politician Bias Analytics Platform: Compare how politicians are framed differently by Breaking911 and other outlets.
• Media Literacy Education Platform: Learn how to critically assess media sources, bias techniques, and news reliability.