Good Authority - Bias and Credibility

LEAST BIASED

These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.

Overall, we rate Good Authority as Least Biased due to its evidence-based, scholarly approach to political analysis. Its reporting is rated High for factual accuracy, with no known failed fact checks and content grounded in academic research.

Detailed Report

Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-1.0)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Website
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY

History

Good Authority is a political analysis website launched in November 2023 by John Sides, the William R. Kenan Jr. Chair and professor of political science at Vanderbilt University. The platform aims to provide evidence-based, non-partisan insights into current political events, drawing on the expertise of leading political scientists to inform the public discourse. Good Authority is the successor to The Monkey Cage, a political science blog hosted on The Washington Post website.

Read our profile on the United States government and media.

Funded by / Ownership

Good Authority is owned and operated by its founder, John Sides. The website does not feature advertisements and offers all content freely without paywalls or subscription fees. However, specific details regarding its funding sources are not publicly disclosed, leaving the platform’s financial backing unclear.

Analysis / Bias

Good Authority is a non-partisan platform providing in-depth political analysis based on scholarly research. For example, the article “Democrats invested in traditional campaign tactics. Was it a Mistake?” examines the impact of campaign field offices on voter turnout in the 2024 U.S. presidential election, particularly focusing on Kamala Harris’s campaign strategies. The article references studies and expert opinions to support its analysis. For instance, it cites research by Joshua Darr and Sean Whyard, authors of a book exploring the effects of campaign field offices, and includes hyperlinks to their studies. This approach enhances the article’s credibility by grounding claims in established research. The article maintains a neutral tone, presenting data and expert insights without displaying clear partisan bias. It discusses the Democratic campaign’s strategies and outcomes but does not explicitly endorse or criticize any political party.

Another piece, “Will Brussels stop funding autocracy?” critically examines the EU’s financial support to member states like Hungary, which were accused of democratic backsliding. The article reflects a centrist, establishment-oriented bias, aligning with traditional pro-rule-of-law and pro-accountability perspectives similar to those of mainstream Republicans and Democrats. It critiques EU leniency toward democratic backsliders like Hungary, emphasizing adherence to institutional regulations to preserve systemic integrity and democratic governance. The piece references credible sources, including statements from EU Commission President Ursula von der Leyen, reports from the V-Dem Institute and Freedom House, Politico Europe, and investigations by The New York Times.

Failed Fact Checks

None in the Last 5 years

Overall, we rate Good Authority as Least Biased due to its evidence-based, scholarly approach to political analysis. Its reporting is rated High for factual accuracy, with no known failed fact checks and content grounded in academic research. (M. Huitsing 11/29/2024)

Source: https://goodauthority.org/

Last Updated on November 29, 2024 by Media Bias Fact Check