MBFC Ratings: By The Numbers

---

Details

How Political Bias is Scored

MBFC uses a composite scoring system that rates each source on a scale from −10 (Extreme Left) to +10 (Extreme Right). This score is derived from four weighted categories: Economic Policy (35%), Social Values (35%), Straight News Balance (15%), and Editorial Bias (15%). The intent is to assess the ideological character of the content, not the publisher’s intent or ownership.

Bias Categories:

• Left (−5.0 to −10): Strong progressive tone, emphasis on equity, activism, or anti-corporate narratives.
• Left-Center (−2.0 to −4.9): Leans left but generally maintains conventional journalism practices.
• Least Biased (−1.9 to +1.9): Fact-focused reporting with minimal editorial framing.
• Right-Center (+2.0 to +4.9): Leans right, but grounded in conventional journalism.
• Right (+5.0 to +10): Conservative editorial positions, often aligned with traditional or nationalist values.

Scores are based on actual content and sourcing, not affiliation. A left or right-leaning outlet is rated as such only when its output consistently reflects those leanings.

How Factual Reporting is Scored

Factual reporting is rated using a weighted formula based on four criteria:

• Failed Fact Checks (40%): Uncorrected factual errors flagged by credible third parties.
• Sourcing (25%): Quality, credibility, and frequency of citations.
• Transparency (25%): Disclosure of ownership, funding, authorship, and mission.
• One-Sidedness/Omission (10%): The presence of emotional language or omission of opposing views.

Ratings range from:

• Very High: No failed fact checks, strong sourcing and transparency.
• High: Solid factual track record with only minor concerns.
• Mostly Factual: Generally reliable but may lack full transparency or balanced sourcing.
• Mixed: Several failed fact checks or sourcing/transparency issues.
• Low: Repeated factual issues, often coupled with pseudoscientific or conspiratorial content.
• Very Low: Consistently unreliable, often purposefully misleading.

Why the Average Score is Slightly Right (+1.10)

The average bias rating of +1.10 reflects a volume effect, not methodological bias. Several interconnected factors contribute to this outcome:

1. Disproportionate Submissions: MBFC evaluates sources submitted by users or discovered during research. Right-leaning sources, especially in the +5.0 to +10 range, are submitted more frequently.
2. Expansion of Conservative Media: Over the past decade, there has been a significant increase in online right-leaning networks, including content farms and sites affiliated with large conservative ecosystems. Many such networks do not maintain traditional editorial standards or source transparency.

This trend does not reflect bias against conservatives, but rather a demonstrable asymmetry in source types and behaviors across the spectrum.

Understanding the Left–Right Low Credibility Discrepancy

The higher number of right-leaning sources rated Low Credibility is often used as a critique of MBFC’s objectivity. However, this disparity is rooted in the nature of the submitted and reviewed content:

• Volume of Right-Leaning Submissions: There is a significantly higher number of right-biased sites submitted for review, especially from ideological or activist networks. In contrast, left-leaning sites are fewer in number and often centralized among legacy media or nonprofit organizations.
• Networked Propagation: MBFC has documented more than 1000 websites generated by politically connected right-leaning content networks. These often mimic local journalism but lack sourcing, transparency, or original reporting (Metric Media).
• Anti-Science Narratives: Low credibility ratings are often associated with the promotion of disinformation. A significant portion of sources rated Low or Very Low on the right disseminate misinformation on climate change, vaccines, elections, and GMO safety on the left. These anti-science stances are verifiably false and conflict with the consensus of credible institutions.
• Transparency and Sourcing Gaps: Many of the low-rated sources lack clear disclosure of ownership, author identity, funding, or location. These criteria heavily influence MBFC’s factuality score.

Removal of Imposter and Non-News Sites

To ensure quality and fairness, MBFC regularly purges the following from the data set:

• Imposter sites designed to mimic legitimate news brands.
• Inactive, duplicate, or abandoned sources.
• Non-editorial sites such as aggregators or satire sources.

This practice prevents the inflation of low-credibility totals and ensures the list reflects opinion-based media sources.

Final Thought

MBFC applies the same methodology to every source regardless of its political leaning. The observed trends — such as higher low-credibility counts on the right — are driven by the nature and volume of the submissions, the rise of partisan disinformation networks, and the presence of anti-science editorial positions that conflict with objective standards of factual reporting.

---

Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation

---