Maldita.es – Bias and Credibility

Maldita.es is rated  least biased with  high factual reporting by Media Bias Fact Check.

---

LEAST BIASED

History

Maldita.es is a Spanish non-profit journalism and fact-checking organization operated by the Maldita.es Foundation. Founded in 2018 from earlier fact-checking initiatives, the organization’s stated mission is to protect the integrity of information and build public trust through journalism, education, technology, research, and public policy advocacy. Maldita.es is one of Spain’s most prominent fact-checking organizations and is a verified signatory of the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN) Code of Principles.

Read our profile on Spain’s media and government.

Funded by / Ownership

Maldita.es is owned and operated by the Maldita.es Foundation, a non-profit organization based in Spain. According to its publicly disclosed methodology and transparency information, the organization receives funding through grants, partnerships, educational initiatives, research projects, content syndication, and reader support. The outlet maintains that it operates independently and publishes detailed information regarding its methodology, editorial standards, corrections process, and neutrality policies. Ownership and funding information are openly disclosed, contributing to transparency.

Analysis / Bias

Maldita.es’ methodology emphasizes evidence-based verification, source transparency, multiple-editor review, correction procedures, and adherence to IFCN standards. The outlet applies a structured rating system including False, Alert, Context, and True, and requires multiple editorial approvals before publication. Sources are cited and linked whenever possible, and the organization publishes detailed explanations of its verification process.

Coverage generally focuses on misinformation, public policy, health claims, science, politics, and digital disinformation. For example, Myths, misinformation and context about the visit of Pope Leo XIV to Spain examines several viral claims surrounding the Pope’s visit and provides sourced explanations, official statements, and contextual information. Rather than advancing a political position, the article focuses on verifying specific claims and distinguishing fact from misinformation.

The outlet also produces original investigative journalism. In 45% of the medicines banned in Spain are still being advertised on Facebook, Instagram, Google and TikTok, Maldita.es documents how prohibited pharmaceutical products continued to appear on major digital advertising platforms despite regulatory actions by Spanish health authorities. The investigation relies on official records, advertising databases, and regulatory documentation.

Political coverage similarly emphasizes verification and context. For instance, What do we know about the L’Espresso article that says Trump intends to “weaken” Sánchez with “the investigation into Zapatero”? evaluates claims circulating online by comparing them against official reports, documented evidence, and publicly available records while clearly distinguishing verified facts from unresolved questions.

Overall, we found reporting to be factual, well-sourced, and generally free of ideological language. While fact-checking organizations may occasionally face accusations of bias from partisan critics, the evidence reviewed indicates that Maldita.es follows a consistent methodology regardless of political subject matter.

Failed Fact Checks

• None to date. They are an IFCN Fact-Checker.

Overall, we rate Maldita.es Least Biased based on its evidence-based fact-checking methodology, transparent sourcing standards, multiple-review verification process, and commitment to non-partisan reporting. We also rate it High for factual reporting due to its rigorous editorial standards, transparent corrections policy, IFCN verification, and consistent reliance on primary and authoritative sources. (D. Van Zandt 06/12/2026)

Source: https://maldita.es/

Last Updated on June 12, 2026 by Media Bias Fact Check

Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources