Media Bias/Fact Check is headquartered in Greensboro, North Carolina, with digital operations supported by services based in California, including hosting (Automattic) and payment processing (Stripe and PayPal).
Before contacting MBFC, please read our F.A.Q. — most common questions are answered there.
We welcome feedback and respond to as many inquiries as possible via email. Thank you for your interest and support!
Email: Editor@Mediabiasfactcheck.com
Frequently Asked Questions
What is Media Bias/Fact Check?
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) is an independent online media resource committed to educating the public on media bias, misinformation, and disinformation. MBFC publishes original content related to media literacy, journalism, and political analysis, and curates current news stories from sources rated as low-biased and factually reliable.
Who owns and operates Media Bias/Fact Check?
Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a North Carolina-based Limited Liability Company solely owned and operated by Dave Van Zandt. He makes all final editorial and publishing decisions. While headquartered in North Carolina, MBFC utilizes core services based in California, including hosting by Automattic and payment processing via Stripe and PayPal. These business relationships establish operational ties to California, which may be relevant in determining applicable legal protections.
Who is Dave Van Zandt?
Dave M. Van Zandt holds a degree in Communications and an advanced degree in the sciences. He currently works in the healthcare industry and has spent more than two decades independently researching media bias and its influence on public perception. He is not affiliated with The New School or David E. Van Zandt, who shares a similar name. Dave is an unaffiliated voter and resides in North Carolina.
Does MBFC have employees?
At present, MBFC does not have paid employees. The site is supported by a team of three volunteers who contribute to source research, fact-checking, and content writing.
Who funds Media Bias/Fact Check?
Please refer to our dedicated Funding Page for full transparency regarding how MBFC is monetized and supported.
How does MBFC determine bias?
Our evaluations are based on a transparent and structured methodology developed to assess political bias and factual reliability. Because media bias involves both content and context, it is inherently difficult to measure through purely scientific means. However, our process yields consistent results across reviewers with different political perspectives. Please see our Methodology Page for a full explanation.
What are the team’s credentials?
While no team member is a professional journalist, all are college-educated individuals with a shared passion for media accountability. We believe evaluating sources as informed consumers, rather than as insiders, brings a valuable perspective.
What if I disagree with a source rating?
All sources are reviewed using the same methodology. Bias is inherently subjective, and we welcome differing views. Our methodology is freely published so that anyone may evaluate a source independently. We often receive criticism from both ends of the political spectrum, which reinforces our commitment to nonpartisanship.
Do you ever update source ratings?
Yes. We routinely update ratings when new information becomes available or when a source materially changes its practices or editorial stance. Significant shifts in bias, ownership, or factual reporting can prompt a re-review.
I own a source and disagree with the rating. Can it be changed?
We will assign a different researcher to re-evaluate the source. If there is clear evidence warranting a rating change based on our methodology, we will revise it and note the update.
What is the difference between the bias rating arrow and the voting poll?
The bias rating arrow reflects MBFC’s official rating, determined using our methodology. The voting poll is a public tool that allows readers to express their opinion. It does not impact our official rating.
Why are there negative articles about MBFC?
Sources that are rated as low factual or biased often respond with criticism. These responses are expected and usually arise when a site disagrees with a factual or bias designation. Our ratings are supported by linked evidence and follow a uniform methodology.
Are MBFC’s ratings objective?
Our methodology is designed to produce consistent, replicable results. While some subjectivity is unavoidable, internal testing shows reviewers across the political spectrum generally arrive at similar ratings when applying the methodology correctly.
Why are more right-leaning sources listed?
This is primarily due to user submissions. While our first 500 sources were selected internally and were politically balanced, the vast majority of the 8000+ sources added since then have come from users. A significant portion of those submissions have been right-leaning outlets. Additionally, following the 2016 and 2020 elections, there was a surge in newly created right-leaning websites, including many from overseas content farms. We evaluate all submitted sources using the same methodology, regardless of political orientation. The higher number of right-leaning sources rated as Mixed or Questionable stems from their volume, not from bias in our process.
Can I access MBFC’s numeric bias ratings?
No. Our internal scoring system is proprietary. In the past, early sharing of ratings led to unauthorized use. We do occasionally grant access to verified media, academic, or research organizations with a clearly defined purpose. We also offer an API for commercial licensing.
Why do you rate sources poorly that reject scientific consensus?
To ensure fairness and neutrality, we apply one standard across all scientific topics: alignment with the consensus of experts in the field. For example, we rely on climate scientists for climate change, not pundits or meteorologists. A source that fails to acknowledge scientific consensus on major issues (e.g., vaccines, GMOs, climate change) may receive a lower factual rating. However, reporting on dissenting studies is acceptable if they are presented within proper scientific context.
How often are sources re-reviewed?
We review high-traffic sources annually and revisit others every 2-3 years. With more than 9000 sources listed and limited staff, priority is given to high-impact and low-credibility sources. However, credible new information may prompt immediate updates.
Why hasn’t my submitted source been reviewed?
We prioritize reviews based on traffic, relevance, and potential public harm. With limited staffing and thousands of pending submissions, it may take time to reach your request. Rest assured, all reviews are handled with care and consistency.
What is the IFCN, and why do you rely on it?
The International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) sets a global standard for transparency and accountability in fact-checking. We reference IFCN-certified organizations because they are required to meet consistent standards regardless of political leaning. This helps reduce our own bias when evaluating factual reporting.
Are you biased?
All people have biases. That’s why MBFC uses a published methodology and team-based approach to reduce individual bias in source evaluations. Our commitment to scientific consensus, factual sourcing, and consistency in application ensures we treat every source equally. If a source presents factual content that acknowledges scientific consensus, it can still be rated highly, regardless of political slant.
Why are Covid-19 and vaccine misinformation rated poorly?
We apply the same science-based standard across all issues. The global medical consensus is that Covid-19 is real and that vaccines are safe and effective. Sources that reject this consensus or promote debunked claims without context are rated accordingly. If the scientific consensus shifts, our ratings will reflect that change. This principle applies universally to all scientific topics.
Last Updated on August 12, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check