These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
- In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does, however, convey a right-leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy.
Factual Reporting: HIGH
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 45/180
According to their about page “Just Facts Daily is a project of Just Facts, a nonprofit institute dedicated to researching and publishing verifiable facts about public policy. Just Facts Daily typically covers topics that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations.” The website does not list an editor, but it is known to be edited by James D. Agresti.
Funded by / Ownership
Just Facts Daily is a 501(c)3 non-profit organization owned by James D. Agresti. Just Facts Daily does not have advertising and is funded through donations.
Analysis / Bias
Just Facts Daily (JFD) is a news, opinion, and fact-checking website with a right-center bias in reporting. JFD’s tagline is “Be Informed, Not Just Opinionated.” This website is certainly informative, but it also appears to be quite opinionated.
First, let’s look at factual reporting. We could not find any evidence of JFD making certified false claims. Each article is also impeccably sourced to credible information to convey its narrative. Therefore, we rate them high for factual reporting. The right-center bias designation comes from multiple factors. First, there is excessive use of loaded emotional words in the headlines. The following loaded words (words that attempt to influence through positive or negative emotion) were found in the first 15 headlines: Incompetent, Dishonest, Catastrophically, Deceitful, Brazen Lie, Smearing, Deadly Falsehoods. Most of these words appeared in headlines when the topic was about liberal politicians or liberal policy. Further, the headlines that described conservative policy did not contain these negative connotations. They were mostly neutral in wording.
In order to keep this short, I will discuss only one article. The article is entitled “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal.” The loaded language, “Brazen Lie” does not fit the content of the article. Clinton and Obama cite the SOFA agreement as to the reason for our troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. This is true and not a brazen lie. There is, however, more to the story and JFD did a good job of showing that they could have legally extended the troop’s time in Iraq but chose not too. Overall, the article is well-sourced and for the most part, is accurate. The bias is conveyed through the author’s attempt to show that Obama and Clinton are mostly responsible for the rise of ISIS, due to abiding by the SOFA agreement signed by former President Bush. In 2011, at the time of the troop withdrawal, ISIS was not considered a threat and it could not be predicted that they would increase in size and strength in such a short period of time. Essentially, the entire article is an attempt to blame the Obama administration for something that was unforeseen at the time.
In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does, however, convey a right-leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. There is also extensive use of loaded negative emotional words when describing the left. This is the opposite approach that a fact-checker should take when instead they should be using neutral language. We rate this source Right-Center Biased.
It should be noted that Just Facts Daily wrote a negative article regarding Media Bias Fact Check that was based on a review by a former reviewer, who is no longer affiliated with our organization. (D. Van Zandt 4/26/2017) Updated (7/13/2018)