Each day Media Bias Fact Check selects and publishes fact checks from around the world. We only utilize fact-checkers that are either a signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) or have been verified as credible by MBFC. Further, we review each fact check for accuracy before publishing. We fact-check the fact-checkers and let you know their bias. When appropriate we explain the rating and/or offer our own rating if we disagree with the fact-checker. (D. Van Zandt)
Claim Codes: Red = Fact Check on a Right Claim, Blue = Fact Check on a Left Claim, Black = Not Political/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience/Other
Fact Checker bias rating Codes: Red = Right-Leaning, Green = Least Biased, Blue = Left-Leaning, Black = Unrated by MBFC
| MOSTLY TRUE |
Claim by Chuck Todd: “Clarence Thomas is about to become the only member of the current Supreme Court who was nominated by a president of one party and confirmed by a Senate controlled by the other party.”
PolitiFact rating: Mostly True (Thomas is the only current member of the Supreme Court to be nominated by a president of one party and confirmed by a Senate of the other. ) Supreme Court nominees confirmed by opposite party in Senate are rare |
| BLATANT LIE |
Claim by nationalfile.com: Wisconsin Assembly Unanimously Votes To Withdraw Biden’s 2020 Electoral Votes
Lead Stories rating: False (they did not vote.) Fact Check: Wisconsin Assembly Did NOT Vote To Withdraw Joe Biden’s Electoral Votes
|
| FALSE | Claim by Thomas Massie (R): Says Voltaire said, “To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize.”
PolitiFact rating: False (The quote was not Voltaire’s. It’s been traced to Kevin Alfred Strom, a white supremacist and neo-Nazi who said something similar during an anti-Semitic radio broadcast in 1993.) Neo-Nazi, not Voltaire, originated quote about ‘who rules over you’ |
| MOSTLY TRUE |
Claim via Social Media: A reminder that “Doctor” Rand Paul was a twice sued-for-malpractice eye doctor. He received his certification through an open-book take-home test administered by a non-accredit board that HE set up, consisting of his family.
The Dispatch rating: Mostly True (It is True Rand Paul was sued twice. As to Paul’s certification, the post is only half true: When Paul began his medical career in 1995, he was certified by the American Board of Ophthalmology, the largest ophthalmology certifier in the country. Paul says that in protest of the board requiring recertification every 10 years, he created a new certification board, the National Board of Ophthalmology, in 1997 and allowed his ABO certification to lapse in 2005.) Fact Checking Claims About Rand Paul’s Professional Background |
| FALSE | Claim by Viral Post: SCOTUS said testing and vaccine mandates were illegal.
Check Your Fact rating: False (While the Supreme Court recently blocked the implementation of a federal vaccine rule, the court did not go so far as to block all vaccine and testing mandates, according to legal experts.) FACT CHECK: Did The Supreme Court Declare Vaccine And Testing Mandates Illegal? |
| BLATANT LIE |
(International: France): Did rugby player Jordan Michallet die due to Covid-19 vaccine?
THIP Media rating: False (He fell from a 4 story building) Fact Check: Did French rugby player Jordan Michallet die due to… |
Disclaimer: We are providing links to fact checks by third-party fact-checkers. If you do not agree with a fact check, please directly contact the source of that fact check.
Video Advertisement
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources
Emailed a grievance about Canadian News stations, I’ve searched my inbox for a response, there were none but I’m sure 24 hours isnt enough time to verify and then change your ratings on CTV, CNN, CBC, GLOBAL, etc… They are not “Moderate” Liberal biased, they are Extremely High-level biased. I’m not sure if you’re funded by government, failing to respond to my email states that you are. I’ll give it a few more days gor your staff to investigate and get back to me. It would be nice yo hear from you whether you agree or not.
C. Scobey: From one MBFC reader to another, I don’t think you’ll find this website changing its rating of a source, much less multiple sources, based only on one reader’s comment. That’s for the best if their methodology is clear and credible, which it seems to be. I don’t think you’re interested in the opinions of other readers regarding news sources, and neither am I. We hear enough about that in our daily lives. What’s needed are more-objective data, which is what this site provides. It’s not perfect, as they admit, but it’s not just the usual unsupported bickering, either. The FAQ page, which I just looked at again, also seems very reasonable to me: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/frequently-asked-questions/
I doubt you’d want another reader, with viewpoints very different from yours, to be able to instigate a ratings change just by emailing opinions. In any case, even if they want our input, they’re not going to drop everything to check out one person’s assertions about a whole group of news sources and get back to you in “a few days.” A reply would be nice–I get that–but considering how many people must contact them, even that can’t be expected. (But more on that in a second.)
Regarding funding, the answer is right on the website: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/funding/ But even if it weren’t, how in the world does a failure to respond to your email suggest they’re government-funded? And for the record, I’ve sent a number of emails to the website, myself — pointing out a few minor faults or inconsistencies, suggestions, and even compliments — which never got a response. I’ll grant that it can be disappointing and even frustrating sometimes. I attribute the lack of response to understaffing. I do think they read my emails, and I think they’ll read yours too if they haven’t already. I’ve seen a couple minor errors corrected even when I’ve received no response, but they were never at the level you’re hoping for: a sweeping change of rating for a media source.
Finally, you state rather authoritatively that “CTV, CNN, CBC, GLOBAL, etc.” “are not ‘Moderate’ Liberal biased, they are Extremely High-level biased.” What’s your methodology? Words like “extreme” and “moderate” are subjective and therefore meaningless without definitions. Their own methodology is explained here: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ Moreover, the scale for CNN at this minute shows it being pretty far to the left. For what it’s worth, that seems pretty accurate to me. People these days aren’t satisfied with any moderate or measured language; they need to see extremes of all kinds. That’s binary thinking. (Good or bad, left or right, right or wrong.) More NUANCED thinking and communication would do an awful lot of good in the world.
Your wording for CBC seems fair since you object to the site’s assessment of CBC as “moderate.” They are indeed shown as being left-center at this moment. Maybe somewhere in the details the site explicitly calls CBC “moderate,” as well, but again remember wording matters. What’s “moderate” to any one person isn’t necessarily what’s moderate to another. That’s why terms have to be defined and associated with statistical data. I can’t comment on “GLOBAL” because I have no idea which source you’re referring to. A search for that word brings up multiple different sources.
For the record, I have no association with the website, other than being a paid subscriber. I just find the work they do incredibly important. I’m not saying any of this to earn brownie points — which would get me nothing anyway. It’s just a passion of mine, as my somewhat-rambling post shows. Thanks for reading.
C. Scobey, I have no record of an email from you. Did you use our source submission form? If so, we open that once a month and add those sources to our pending list. We are currently 2 years behind as we are a staff of 3. The Government does not fund us, but they sure do tax us.
Thank you Richard. Yes, the opinions of one person will not move the needle, but we always like to take a look.