Frequently Asked Questions
What is Media Bias/Fact check?
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) is an independent online media outlet. MBFC is dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices. We also provide original articles on media bias, journalism and politics. On our social media pages we provide current news and events from low biased sources as well as all content posted on our website.
Who owns and runs Media Bias/Fact Check?
Media Bias Fact Check, LLC is a Limited Liability Company owned solely by Dave Van Zandt. He also makes all final editing and publishing decisions.
Who in the heck is Dave Van Zandt?
Dave M. Van Zandt obtained a Communications Degree before pursuing a higher degree in the sciences. Dave currently works full time in the health care industry. Dave has spent more than 20 years as an arm chair researcher on media bias and its role in political influence. For the record, he also is not the President of the New School, that is a different David E. Van Zandt who is the head of a liberal college in New York City. I am an unaffiliated voter from North Carolina.
Does Media Bias/Fact Check have any employees?
Yes and no. At the moment we have five volunteers who perform source research, writing and assist in fact checking. We hope to be able to offer pay for their services in the future as the website grows.
Who funds Media Bias/Fact Check?
We have an account with Google’s AdSense. We strictly rely on third party advertising, meaning we do not pick the ads, so that we can remain free of influence. These ads generate a fraction of penny per page view. Thus far the bulk of our minimal funds come from these ads. We also have a donate button on our website and a Patreon account that allows people to donate whatever amount they choose to help fund this project. We do not accept funding from any businesses, corporations, politicians or media outlets, to again remain free from influence. Lastly, we offer a membership for ad free browsing at a cost of $5 per month.
How do you determine the bias of a source?
Please see our comprehensive Methodology page. Keep in mind this is not a scientifically proven methodology. It is a simple tool that provides a general rating of bias. Results may vary based on the person performing the evaluation. However, our field tests show a close correlation in ratings regardless of political bias.
What are the credentials of Media Bias/Fact Check?
None of the MBFC team are professional journalists. We actually see this as an advantage as we are media consumers just like you. Each person on the team is college educated in a variety of fields with a common interest in keeping media accountable for their words and information.
You are wrong! Why is (such and such) source in this category?
We use the same methodology to evaluate every source. We freely publish the methodology so that anyone can rate sources on their own. Reading bias is quite subjective based on the individual readers own biases. We use a team approach to combat this. We suggest you try our methodology on the source in question before declaring it wrong or labeling MBFC as left or right bias. The fact that we get accused of both probably means we are doing a good job.
Do you ever change source ratings?
Yes we do. There would be two reasons to change a source’s rating. One being that we noticed or re-reviewed the source and saw something we missed or perhaps the source changed. Since the election of 2016 some sources have changed affiliation or moved further left or right. We try to make adjustments when we see this.
I own a source and I don’t like my rating, will you change it?
Maybe. We will have another one of our researchers review it. We will add the researchers comments and if a change is warranted we will adjust the rating to fit the score based on methodology. In other words we won’t change it unless there is solid evidence to do so.
What is the difference between a Daily Source Bias Check and the main source listing?
There isn’t a difference. The Daily Source Bias Check is a copy of the information from the source’s main page on the website. We post the daily bias check as a way to spotlight a different source each day. With 2000 sources on the website and counting many might not have heard of the source.
What is the difference between the bias rating arrow and the voting poll?
The bias rating arrow found on top of source pages is determined by MBFC researchers using our methodology. This is the official bias rating that we endorse. The voting poll serves two purposes. First, it is a way for people to interact with the website and to voice their opinion. Second, it gives the reader more information. They can compare our rating to the public’s opinion to see if there is a significant difference or not. To be clear, the voting poll does not impact the bias rating arrow.
I’ve seen negative articles written about MBFC. Why is that?
It is simple. Highly biased websites that are not always factual don’t like us exposing them. Since we back our ratings with evidence they don’t really have any recourse other than to discredit our website and ratings. We fully expect this, but are confident the readers of this website will be able to look at the source, our ratings, and decide for themselves who is credible.
Why do you use Wikipedia on some reviews?
Short answer is it saves time when locating the background of a source. For example, where they are located, when they were established and who owns it, etc?. It also is a stepping stone to credible links that may help with the research. Wikipedia is “not” used in any way to determine a sources rating. Ratings are determined by reading articles and calculating a score using our methodology. Further, we also use Politifact, Fact Check, Snopes and other credible fact checking sites to help determine factual reporting.
Are your ratings objective?
All sources are rated objectively using our methodology which calculates a score. However, every source on this website has been reviewed by a human being, who certainly does have bias. This means that a different reviewer using our methodology may come up with a slightly different score. Our testing has concluded that people from different political affiliations have similar scores once they understand how to apply the methodology. So, the answer is ratings are somewhat subjective.
Why do you have more Right Wing sources listed?
The first 500 or so sources reviewed were picked by the reviewers and were mostly balanced. The last 2000+ sources added have been submitted by users. We have found that right wing sites are submitted for review more. Significantly more! We review what we get. We would love to have more left wing sites submitted for review to provide more balance. Further, prior to and after the election of 2016 there was an explosion of fake right wing websites, many of which originate in the country of Macedonia. We have added several hundred of these sites to our questionable list, which leads to far more right wing sites being listed at this time.
How can I get a copy of you numerical media bias ratings?
Short answer. You can’t. Our ratings are proprietary and we will not share them. Please don’t misunderstand, we want to, but we made some mistakes early on sharing them and within 2 days a website appeared using these ratings for their own personal gain. You may request our spreadsheet, CVS, etc, but the chances of getting it are low unless you provide solid evidence you are from a credible media, research or educational source. We need verifiable ID and a stated purpose of the use. We will then consider your request and get back to you. If we don’t get back to you it means we are not interested. Sorry to be blunt, but we get a lot of requests and can only answer the most serious inquiries.
Why do you rate sources poorly if they do not support the consensus of science?
In order for us to be consistent and to not pick sides, we had to develop a standard that must be adhered to no matter the science. We rely on the consensus of scientists in the specific field, in other words, Climate Scientists for Climate Change (not meteorologists or economists), Geneticists for GMO’s (not holistic healers) and Doctors for vaccines (not Chiropractors). This allows us to be consistent and free from bias. We recognize that there are some studies that may contradict the consensus and reporting on them is acceptable, however we require acknowledgement that these studies differ from the current consensus. If a source makes that distinction they will maintain a High factual rating, if not they may fall to Mixed factual reporting or be designated to our Questionable or Conspiracy/Pseudoscience list. Lastly, if the consensus changes in a particular science so will our ratings.