Fox News (foxnews.com) – Bias and Credibility

bruh this site itself is a bit left-leaning

mixed rating for reliability? disgraceful, you list dozens of lies. ever hear the story of the boy who cried wolf. you can’t be a truthful source and also a liar, they’re just liars. just because a broken clock is right 2x a day doesn’t mean you can use the clock to tell the time. disgusting

@Richard Babylon
I hate u.

Fow news is very bias and I support this page and why are ppl righting paragraphs abt this stuff

Unrelated, but since there’s no comment section over there, please update We Got This Covered. They’re very political now.

I stumbled across this website looking for something else. I’m a news junkie and watch both conservative and liberal news sites.

I found your website to be mostly bias not because you lean to the left, which you do, but because every conservative news station per your little chart did not score well, yet most of the liberal news sites scored better.

I argue all of them, liberal or conservative, should be in the low postion on your basic ranking system. All news stations lie, exaggerate, and omit portions of the truth!!!!!!! It’s called ratings.

All news personalities, liberal or conservative, are just like politicians anytime they open the hole under their nose garbage is going to spew out.

You didn’t list MSNBC as a “Questionable Source”

They’ve had to apologize publicly at least 6 times for making up “news”. As another person mentioned, MSNBC should be listed as Propaganda, since they misreport almost every item they present. A glaring example is Maddow uneqivically saying “If you get the vaccine, COVID stops.” We now know that’s not so, so what was her scientific proof?

I appreciate this website given the ubiquitous lies and conspiracies that are rampant and Trump’s ludicrous presidency. Unfortunately, those who need this site most will not come here.

Honestly, I don’t even care about the politics, the fact that such a large and popular news network can be spreading such rampant disinformation and receive no consequences is superlatively concerning in of itself. It’s a testament to all the misinformation being spread with the Information Age.

so fox news is bias towards democrats?

Okay, I don’t understand why Fox is rated like this, shouldn’t it be rated similar to CNN?
If CNN is left center then Fox News should at least be rated around that area on the right side, not way down right at extreme.
Also, CNN has lied and so has Fox, so they should have the same credibility. In my opinion from viewing both sites and studying them, they should have the same credibility rating and the same bias, with CNN on the left center and Fox on the right center. Put them both to the extreme if you want to, just make it fair!
Also, in rating these sites like this, you’re showing bias.

@ok so… That is incorrect. When speaking about facts, there is an objective truth. What you seem to believe is that we arrive at the truth by presenting both sides, both sides of what?! both sides of the truth??? truth doesnt have sides, it has no affiliations, it has no ideology, it just is. what you are suggesting is what Fox News strategy used to be, not because they were neutral, impartial, or had any ethical code or mission to provide the public with the truth, because that is not the effect that presenting “both sides” has. Climate change caused by human is an undeniable fact. The consensus within the scientific community is more absolute and unwavering than the concept of time being one directional (from past to present to future but not from future to past). But in regards to global warming Fox News used to present it by having debates where they would invite a couple of climate/enviornmental scientists to argue that it is caused by human activity, and a couple of professional public speakers who work for the petrol companies/federal lobbies who were paid by Exxon to get their bachlors degree in ecology or whatever so they would be able to present themselves as scientists and get that credibility. The professional speakers on the oil companies’ payroll would go into it with years of experience in being persuasive along with a bunch of data prepared to be misinterpreted to fit their motives of arguing that climate change is not caused by all the mining, burning of fossil fuels, pollution, etc… meanwhile the real scientists have no experience in public speaking, dont have an accurate idea about how much (or how little) the general public actually knows or understands about the scientific method, general chemistry, ecology, biology, environmental science, etc.. they dont know about influence, confidence, relatability, or what sticks with people. And even if the real scientists clearly win the debate,,, the effect it has can only favor the lies. most people wont remember anything that was said, much less understand the jargon that the scientists were using, what they will remember is that there were 2 scientists that were arguing that climate change is real, is caused by humans and is a big problem, and there were 2 “scientists” who were arguing that climate naturally goes through eras, and that there is no conclusive evidence that proves that human activity is what is affecting the increase in extreme weather. So even if the people can tell that the guys working for the fossil fuel lobby lost the debate, they are still left with the impression that scientists are still split and therefor they will naturally take the opinion that the corporate propaganda pushes them to take by telling them that environmentalists want to make their pickup trucks illegal, or at least make them pay an expensive tax to be able to drive their diesel tuck. which is of course a complete lie, but its not like science has a budget or foundation that funds getting information out to the public or anyone to call out these lies… presenting both side does the opposite of what you think it does, in practice it only gives more credibility and legitimacy to the bullshit, lies, and false propaganda. the fact that science and academics usually confirm leftist arguments, does not mean that science nor the truth has a political bias, it just means that leftist policies and perspectives are more educated, formed by considering facts rather than prejudice, fear, corporate interests, ignorance, and/or tribal/identity movements/mentality. therefor leftists’ policies are more compatible with reality. The right will claim to believe that university is a leftist indoctrinating institution, and think that science leans left rather than the left leaning towards science/truth, but if any university or college professor ever says something that favors the right’s perspective they will lift it up as defining truth because some state university did a study that they feel confirms their perspective, which is why Jordan Peterson became such a prominent and popular figure. He’s an insecure, bitter, drug addicted, entitled, small man who worked as a professor at a mediocre Canadian college, but the right treated him like the ultimate confirmation, while dismissing what professors at Harvard, Standford, Oxford, Cambridge etc had to say on the matter, because academics are a sham… The problem is that you believe that truth lies in the middle, but that is rarely the case, Neurologists have determined that the most accurate predictor on whether a person holds conservative views is not where they grew up, it’s not their parent’s political leanings, it’s not their demographics or socio-economic backgrounds, it is the size of their amygdala, which is the fight or flight part of the brain. if a person has an enlarged amygdala, it means they are more emotionally reactive, they make their judgement based on how familiar and comfortable they are with something. which makes sense, it’s the reason why conservatives trust cops and pastors but fall for the anti-trans propaganda and believe that trans people are going to abuse girls in public bathrooms despite not having a single case they can site of a trans person sexually abusing a child, meanwhile in the US there are about 10 cops and pastors/priests who get arrested for raping, molesting, or trafficking children every WEEK. that is average of more than one a day. But you have conservatives sharing a case from 2006 in which a drag queen got arrested for molesting a kid, but Trump’s spiritual advisor, a pastor who plead guilty to raping 12 year old girl, thats ignored, excused, or dismissed as one bad apple, or one regrettable mistake by an otherwise righteous man of god… Anyways, if you were able to be ruled by reason rather than prejudice, ignorance, and fear you would be more intellectually curious, more accepting, and celebrate diversity, which would result in you being a liberal, and if you also enjoyed reading you might have even become a leftist.