Methodology

Objective

Starting in 2025, we have a new methodology that aims to assess media outlets’ ideological bias and factual reliability systematically. It uses a comprehensive, weighted scoring system to evaluate political, social, and journalistic dimensions. This approach ensures an accurate and transparent assessment of a source’s political alignment and commitment to factual reporting, providing readers with a better understanding of media credibility and bias. (All reviewed and re-reviewed sources are subject to this methodology beginning Jan 1, 2025.)

Understanding Bias and Factual Reporting

Bias is inherently subjective, and while no universally accepted scientific formula exists to measure it, our methodology uses objective indicators to approximate and represent bias. Each evaluated source is placed on a bias scale, visually represented by a yellow dot, to indicate its position. This is complemented by a “Detailed Report” that explains the source’s characteristics and the reasoning behind its bias rating.

While this updated methodology reduces the influence of a strictly U.S.-centric political spectrum, it remains primarily tailored to the political landscape of the United States. This ensures that evaluations are relevant to a significant audience while acknowledging that some biases in the U.S. context may not apply exactly in other countries where terms like “Liberal” may have a different meaning. Readers should consider this when comparing sources with political systems from other countries.

For example, a left-leaning source looks like this:

 

A strongly right-leaning source looks like this:

A news agency like Reuters looks like this:

Comprehensive Evaluation

To ensure a thorough and accurate evaluation, our methodology requires reviewing a minimum of 10 headlines and 5 full news stories from each source. This allows us to analyze the language, framing, and tone used in headlines and delve deeper into the article’s content, sourcing, and presentation of facts.

Our analysis employs various search techniques, including manual searches for patterns in reporting, keyword analyses, and comparisons with independent, verified sources. These techniques are used to identify the source’s political affiliation, ideological leanings, and adherence to journalistic standards. Special attention is given to detecting bias by omission, one-sided narratives, and the use of unreliable sources.

Human reviewers conduct all evaluations and scoring to ensure accuracy and a comprehensive understanding of the content. Any use of AI tools, such as Grammarly, is strictly limited to grammar and text editing purposes and does not influence the scoring or assessment process.

The complexity of the review process can vary depending on the source. Evaluations are often more straightforward for well-established outlets with extensive archives and transparent practices. However, additional research into ownership, funding, and third-party references is often required for newer or less transparent sources, making the process more time-consuming.

This multi-layered, human-driven approach ensures a comprehensive and objective understanding of each source’s credibility and bias while maintaining the highest standards of accuracy and integrity.

---

Bias Scoring System

Scoring Mechanism

The placement of a source on the Left-Right Bias Scale is determined by a weighted composite score derived from four categories: Economic System (35%), Social Progressive Liberalism vs. Traditional Social Conservatism (35%), Straight News Reporting Balance (15%), and Editorial Bias (15%). Scores are on a scale of -10 to +10, and the weighted average determines the overall bias score.

Bias Scoring Levels

• -10 to -8.0: Extreme Left Bias
• -7.9 to -5.0: Left Bias (Far Left at -7.0+)
• -4.9 to -2.0: Left-Center Bias
• -1.9 to +1.9: Least Biased
• +2.0 to +4.9: Right-Center Bias
• +5.0 to +7.9: Right Bias (Far Right at +7.0+)
• +8.0 to +10: Extreme Right Bias

---

Scoring Categories

Economic System (35%)
Evaluates the economic ideology the source promotes, from communism to no-regulation capitalism.

• -10: Communism – Advocates no corporatism, extreme regulation, and full government ownership of industries.
• -7.5: Socialism – Supports minimal corporatism, high regulation, and significant government ownership.
• -5: Democratic Socialism – Endorses reduced corporatism with strongly regulated capitalism.
• -2.5: Regulated Market Economy – Promotes moderate corporatism with balanced regulations.
• 0: Centrism – Balances regulation and corporate influence without significant bias.
• +2.5: Moderately Regulated Capitalism – Leans slightly toward corporatism with moderate government intervention.
• +5: Classical Liberalism – Emphasizes moderate to high corporatism with lower regulations.
• +7.5: Libertarianism – Advocates low government intervention and high corporate influence.
• +10: Radical Laissez-Faire Capitalism – Advocates for minimal to no regulation, with the economy governed entirely by free-market principles and private enterprise.

---

Social Progressive Liberalism vs. Traditional Social Conservatism (35%)
Measures the source’s stance on social values and advocacy. (Abortion, Immigration, Climate Change, Social Justice, Equity, Etc.)

• -10: Strong Progressive Liberalism – Advocates for highly progressive social values, focusing on equality, equity, and inclusivity.
• -7.5: Progressive Liberalism – Strongly supports liberal social policies with less emphasis on traditional values.
• -5: Moderate Progressive Liberalism – Leans toward liberal social values but with some moderation.
• -2.5: Mild Progressive Liberalism – Slightly leans socially liberal but acknowledges traditional perspectives.
• 0: Balanced – Maintains a neutral stance on social values, incorporating multiple viewpoints.
• +2.5: Mild Conservatism – Slightly favors traditional social values while acknowledging liberal perspectives.
• +5: Moderate Conservatism – Advocates for conservative social values while allowing for some liberal viewpoints.
• +7.5: Traditional Conservatism – Strongly supports religious or traditional family values.
• +10: Strong Traditional Conservatism – Exclusively promotes traditional or religious values, opposing liberal ideologies.

---

Straight News Reporting Balance (15%)
Measures how well a source reports all sides in its straight news stories, either through story selection or content balance within articles. This covers strictly news reporting and is separate from Editorial/Op-Ed bias.

• -10: Extreme Left Reporting – Straight news stories exclusively promote left-leaning perspectives, dismissing or omitting opposing views.
• -7.5: Strong Left Reporting – Frequently promotes left-leaning stories with limited inclusion of opposing viewpoints.
• -5: Moderate Left Reporting – Often leans left in reporting but occasionally includes counterpoints or opposing narratives.
• -2.5: Mild Left Reporting – Slightly favors left-leaning framing but makes an effort to balance perspectives.
• 0: Neutral/Balanced – Straight news stories equally represent all perspectives without discernible bias.
• +2.5: Mild Right Reporting – Slightly favors right-leaning viewpoints while attempting to include other perspectives.
• +5: Moderate Right Reporting – Leans right in reporting but occasionally includes counterpoints or opposing narratives.
• +7.5: Strong Right Reporting – Frequently promotes right-leaning stories with limited inclusion of opposing viewpoints.
• +10: Extreme Right Reporting – Straight news stories exclusively promote right-leaning perspectives, dismissing or omitting opposing views.

---

Editorial Bias (15%)
Evaluates bias expressed through opinion pieces, editorials, and the use of loaded emotional language that favors one side of the ideological spectrum.

• -10: Extreme Left Editorial Bias – Editorials exclusively promote left-leaning views, using highly emotional or manipulative language.
• -7.5: Strong Left Editorial Bias – Regularly supports left-leaning views with emotionally charged language, though occasionally less intense.
• -5: Moderate Left Editorial Bias – Often leans left in editorials, with some emotional framing but less extreme.
• -2.5: Mild Left Editorial Bias – Slightly favors left-leaning perspectives in editorials, using minimal emotional language.
• 0: Neutral/Balanced – Editorials present perspectives fairly and avoid loaded emotional language.
• +2.5: Mild Right Editorial Bias – Slightly favors right-leaning perspectives in editorials, using minimal emotional language.
• +5: Moderate Right Editorial Bias – Often leans right in editorials, with some emotional framing but less extreme.
• +7.5: Strong Right Editorial Bias – Regularly supports right-leaning views with emotionally charged language, though occasionally less intense.
• +10: Extreme Right Editorial Bias – Editorials exclusively promote right-leaning views, using highly emotional or manipulative language.

---

Example Bias Calculation

Example Source Scoring:

• Economic System: -2.5 (Regulated Market Economy)
• Social Progressive Liberalism vs. Traditional Social Conservatism: -7.5 (Progressive Liberalism)
• Straight News Reporting Balance: -5 (Moderate Left Reporting)
• Editorial Bias: 0 (Neutral Editorials)

Weighted Scores:

• Economic System: -2.5 × 0.35 = -0.88
• Social Values: -7.5 × 0.35 = -2.63
• Straight News Reporting Balance: -5 × 0.15 = -0.75
• Editorial Bias: 0 × 0.15 = 0.00

Total Weighted Score: -0.88 – 2.63 – 0.75 + 0.00 = -4.26
Bias Rating: Moderate Left-Center Bias

---

Factual Reporting Scoring System

Scoring Mechanism

The factual reporting score is derived from four weighted categories: Failed Fact Checks (40%), Sourcing (25%), Transparency (25%), and One-Sidedness/Omission (10%). Each category is scored on a scale of 0–10, with the weighted average determining the overall factuality rating.

Factuality Rating Levels

• 0: Very High – Consistently factual, uses credible information, no failed fact checks.
• 0.1–1.9: High – High factual, minor sourcing issues, reasonable fact check record
• 2.0–4.4: Mostly Factual – Generally reliable but may have occasional fact-check failures, transparency, and sourcing issues.
• 4.5–6.4: Mixed – Reliability varies; multiple fact-check failures, poor sourcing, lack of transparency, one-sidedness.
• 6.5–8.4: Low – Often unreliable; frequent fact-check failures and significant issues with sourcing, transparency, propaganda, conspiracies, and pseudoscience promotion.
• 8.5–10: Very Low – Consistently unreliable, heavily biased, with intentional misinformation likely.

Scoring Categories

Failed Fact Checks (40%)
Fact-check records from credible third-party organizations over the past five years are analyzed. Only uncorrected errors negatively impact the score. We also look for instances of undocumented misinformation, promoting conspiracy theories, and pseudoscience. (See explanation below)

• 0: No failed fact checks or confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 1: One failed fact check or one confirmed case of misinformation.
• 2: Two failed fact checks or two confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 3: Three failed fact checks or three confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 4: Four failed fact checks or four confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 5: Five failed fact checks or five confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 6: Six failed fact checks or six confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 7: Seven failed fact checks or seven confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 8: Eight failed fact checks or eight confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 9: Nine failed fact checks or nine confirmed cases of misinformation.
• 10: Ten or more failed fact checks or confirmed cases of misinformation.

Explanation:
This category reflects the extent to which a source provides accurate and factually correct information. Scores are based on the number of failed fact checks or confirmed cases of misinformation identified over the past five years by credible third-party organizations or the MBFC reviewer. Only uncorrected errors negatively impact the score, as accountability for corrections is considered positive.

Additionally, sources that promote pseudoscience or conspiracy theories will score 5 or above, depending on the frequency and prominence of such content. These higher scores indicate a significant deviation from factual reporting and a tendency to disseminate unreliable or misleading information. This adjustment ensures that sources engaging in consistent pseudoscientific or conspiratorial narratives are appropriately penalized in their factuality rating.

A higher score in this category reflects lower reliability and factual accuracy.

---

Sourcing (25%)
Measures the source’s credibility and depth of references, including proper citations and hyperlinks to external, credible sources. (Sources that do not use hyperlinks or explicit citations will automatically score 5 or higher)

• 0: Perfect sourcing; highly credible references with clear, thorough citations.
• 1: Almost perfect sourcing, with minor inconsistencies, but still largely credible.
• 2: Mostly credible sourcing but occasional lapses in-depth, citations, or verification.
• 3: Generally credible, but sourcing issues such as missing hyperlinks or reliance on less authoritative sources occur more frequently.
• 4: Mostly credible, but noticeable reliance on less trustworthy sources or gaps in sourcing.
• 5: Mixed sourcing, including credible and questionable references, with inconsistent verification of claims.
• 6: Moderate sourcing issues, with more frequent reliance on less credible or poorly supported claims.
• 7: Limited sourcing, mostly relying on questionable or unreliable references, with minimal evidence for claims.
• 8: Very limited sourcing, heavily reliant on discredited or biased sources, with few proper citations.
• 9: Minimal sourcing, using widely discredited sources with almost no verification or evidence.
• 10: No sourcing at all or complete reliance on discredited, unreliable sources, with no external verification.

Explanation:
This category evaluates how well a source substantiates its claims with credible evidence. A higher score reflects poor or absent sourcing, while a lower score indicates rigorous citation practices and reliance on reputable sources.

---

Transparency (25%)
Assesses the extent to which the source discloses critical information about its ownership, funding, authorship, mission, and location.

• 0: Fully transparent, with clear and detailed information about all five key elements (About page, ownership, funding, authors, and location).
• 1: Near full transparency, with minor gaps in one element but still highly transparent overall.
• 2: Mostly transparent, with four out of five elements disclosed, such as missing only one key detail.
• 3: Mostly transparent but lacking depth or clarity in one or two elements, though still generally clear.
• 4: Noticeable gaps in one or more areas, providing partial information for three or more elements.
• 5: Partially transparent, with only two out of five elements clearly disclosed, leaving significant gaps.
• 6: Limited transparency, with information available on only two elements but unclear or missing details for others.
• 7: Minimal transparency, disclosing only one of the five elements (e.g., ownership) without additional information.
• 8: Very limited transparency, providing vague or unclear details on only one of the five elements.
• 9: Almost no transparency, offering little verifiable information on any of the five key elements.
• 10: No transparency at all, with no clear information about ownership, funding, authors, location, or purpose.

Explanation:
Transparency is critical for evaluating a source’s credibility and accountability. A lack of transparency, particularly regarding ownership or funding, raises concerns about potential conflicts of interest and reduces trustworthiness.

---

One-Sidedness/Bias Omission/Propaganda (10%)
This category evaluates the extent to which a source provides balanced perspectives versus exhibiting significant ideological bias or propaganda. The scoring also accounts for the use of emotional language or loaded terms, which typically become more extreme as bias intensifies.

• 0: Perfect balance, presenting all sides equally with no discernible bias or use of emotional language.
• 1: Almost perfectly balanced, with very minor favoritism and minimal use of subtle emotional cues, but all perspectives fairly represented.
• 2: Minor bias, slightly favoring one side with occasional use of emotionally suggestive terms, while still maintaining reasonable balance and representation of opposing views.
• 3: Small bias, favoring one side more frequently, with moderate use of emotional or persuasive language, though still offering some counterpoints.
• 4: Moderate bias, often showing a preference for one side and increasingly using emotionally charged wording to frame issues, though occasionally including opposing views.
• 5: Noticeable bias, favoring one side significantly, with frequent use of emotionally evocative language that reinforces the preferred narrative while offering limited representation of opposing viewpoints.
• 6: Frequent bias, presenting the favored side positively while downplaying or dismissing the other side, coupled with regular use of emotionally provocative or polarizing language.
• 7: Significant bias, mostly favoring one side with minimal inclusion of alternative perspectives and heavy reliance on emotionally charged or inflammatory rhetoric.
• 8: Heavy bias, consistently favoring one side with little effort to present alternative viewpoints and pervasive use of emotional language that borders on propaganda.
• 9: Strong bias, rarely including alternative perspectives, using extreme emotional framing or language that seeks to manipulate reader perception almost entirely in favor of one viewpoint.
• 10: Extreme bias or propaganda, exclusively presenting one side with no balance or acknowledgment of opposing views, often employing inflammatory, divisive, or manipulative language to an extreme degree.

Explanation:
This scale reflects both the ideological balance of the source and the degree to which emotional or loaded language is used to sway the audience, emphasizing the role of rhetoric in media bias.

---

Example Factuality Calculation

Example Source Scoring:

• Failed Fact Checks: 4 = 4 × 0.40 = 1.60
• Sourcing: 6 = 6 × 0.25 = 1.50
• Transparency: 7 = 7 × 0.25 = 1.75
• One-Sidedness/Bias: 6 = 6 × 0.10 = 0.60

Total Weighted Score: 1.60 + 1.50 + 1.75 + 0.60 = 5.45
Factuality Rating: Mixed

---

Politician Ratings

Bias Scoring System

Bias placement is determined by evaluating two primary dimensions: Economic System and Social Progressive vs. Traditional Conservatism. Each is weighted equally at 50%, and the composite score determines where a source or political figure falls on the Left–Right spectrum.

Economic System (50%)
Assesses economic ideology, ranging from full government regulation and ownership to free-market capitalism.

• -10: Communism

• -7.5: Socialism

• -5: Democratic Socialism

• -2.5: Regulated Market Economy

• 0: Centrist/Neutral

• +2.5: Moderately Regulated Capitalism

• +5: Classical Liberalism

• +7.5: Libertarianism

• +10: Radical Laissez-Faire Capitalism

Social Progressive Liberalism vs. Traditional Conservatism (50%)
Assesses positions on social issues such as abortion, LGBTQ+ rights, immigration, climate change, and religious values.

• -10: Strong Progressive Liberalism

• -7.5: Progressive Liberalism

• -5: Moderate Progressive Liberalism

• -2.5: Mild Progressive Liberalism

• 0: Balanced

• +2.5: Mild Conservatism

• +5: Moderate Conservatism

• +7.5: Traditional Conservatism

• +10: Strong Traditional Conservatism

Bias Rating Scale

• -10 to -8.0: Extreme Left Bias

• -7.9 to -5.0: Left Bias

• -4.9 to -2.0: Left-Center Bias

• -1.9 to +1.9: Least Biased

• +2.0 to +4.9: Right-Center Bias

• +5.0 to +7.9: Right Bias

• +8.0 to +10: Extreme Right Bias

---

Factual Reporting Scoring System

Factuality is determined solely by the number of failed fact checks documented by IFCN-approved fact checkers (e.g., FactCheck.org, PolitiFact, AP, Snopes) or controversies. This category accounts for 100% of the factual score.

Failed Fact Checks (100%)

• 0: No failed fact checks = Very High

• 1: One failed fact check = High

• 2-3: A few failed fact checks = Mostly Factual

• 3–7: Several failed fact checks = Mixed

• 8–9: Frequent fact check failures = Low

• 10+: Many fact check failures = Very Low

Factuality Rating Levels

• 0 = Very High

• 1 = High

• 2-3 = Mostly Factual

• 3–7 = Mixed

• 8–9 = Low

• 10+ = Very Low

---

MBFC Credibility Rating

The credibility of a media source is assessed using a 10-point scale. The formula prioritizes Factual Reporting, followed by Bias, and then Traffic/Longevity. Here’s how the scoring works:

Scoring Categories:

• Factual Reporting:
  • Very High: 4 points
  • High: 3 points
  • Mostly Factual: 2 points
  • Mixed: 1 point
  • Low: 0 points
• Bias:
  • Least Biased/Pro-Science: 3 points
  • Right-Center or Left-Center: 2 points
  • Left or Right: 1 point
  • Questionable/Conspiracy/Pseudoscience: 0 points
• Traffic/Longevity:
  • High Traffic: 2 points
  • Medium Traffic: 1 point
  • Minimal Traffic: 0 points
  • Bonus: 1 point for sources existing for 10 years or more
• Press Freedom (applicable for sources from countries with significant censorship or government control):
  • Limited Freedom: -1 point
  • Total Oppression: -2 points

Credibility Levels:

• High Credibility: A score of 6 or above.
• Medium Credibility: A score between 3-5 points or In accordance with the MBFC scoring system, a “Mostly Factual” rating with a score between 3.6 and 4.5 automatically results in a Medium Credibility score, regardless of the overall tally in other categories. This reflects the critical importance of factual accuracy in determining credibility.
• Low Credibility: A score of 0-2 points. Sources rated as Questionable, Conspiracy, or Pseudoscience are automatically classified as Low Credibility.

Example Scores:

Reuters 4+3+2+1=10 High
Bangkok Post: 1+2+2+1 – 1=5 Medium
The Daily Defender 1+1+0+0=2 Low

---

Pollster Rating Methodology:

Bias Assessment:

• • Derived from FiveThirtyEight’s Mean-Reverted Bias.
  • Bias is categorized as follows:
    • 0 to +0.9: Least Biased
    • 1.0 to 2.4: Left or Right-Center Bias
    • 2.5 or higher: Left or Right Bias

Factual Reporting:

• Measured using the “538 overall star ratings” metric.
• Factual reporting is rated as:
  • 3.0: Very High Factual
  • 2.0 – 2.9: High Factual
  • 1.5 – 1.9: Mostly Factual
  • 0.5 – 1.4: Mixed Factual
  • 0.4 or less: Low Factual

News Reporting Consideration:

• • • For pollsters that also report news on their website, their news content is factored into the overall rating.
    • This includes assessing the quality, bias, and accuracy of their news reporting.

1.  

---

Country Freedom Rating

We assess a country’s level of freedom by averaging scores from Reporters Without Borders (RSF) and Freedom House’s Freedom in the World Index. Both use a 0-100 scale, where 100 represents maximum freedom, and 0 indicates no freedom. RSF focuses on press freedom, while Freedom House evaluates democratic governance and various personal freedoms. The combined scores offer a comprehensive view of a country’s freedom status.

Scoring Breakdown:

• Excellent Freedom: 100-90 points
• Mostly Free: 89-70 points
• Moderate Freedom: 69-50 points
• Limited Freedom: 49-25 points
• Total Oppression: 24-0 points

If a country hasn’t been rated by either RSF or Freedom House, we turn to alternative credible sources like Unesco.org, Statista.org, or BBC Country Profiles to estimate its freedom level.

---

Country Government Bias Rating

Each country profile has a bias rating arrow like our source pages. Country government bias is determined by examining the head of state (President, Prime Minister, etc) and their political party positions. We also factor in the economic systems of each country, such as capitalism, socialism, communism, and democratic socialism. The right-left designation is mostly determined by that country’s economic policy and system, with less consideration given to the social agenda.

Other Factors Explained

Fact-Check Verification

Our methodology incorporates findings from credible fact-checkers who are affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network (IFCN). Only fact checks from the last five years are considered, and any corrected fact checks do not negatively impact the source’s rating.

Transparency and Accountability

We adhere to the highest standards of transparency and accountability, providing detailed explanations of our funding, organizational structure, and methodology. We are committed to making prompt and transparent corrections in accordance with our corrections policy.

Lack of Transparency

A source is considered to lack transparency if it fails to provide an ‘About’ page or a clear description of its mission. Transparency is further compromised if the ownership of the source is not openly disclosed, including the identification of the parent company and key individuals involved. Additionally, the absence of information about major donors, funding sources, or general revenue generation methods contributes to this lack of transparency. It is essential for the source to at least disclose the country, state, or city of operation and the name of the person responsible (such as the editor). While providing a physical address is not mandatory, meeting some of these transparency criteria is important. Inadequate transparency typically results in the source’s factual reporting rating being reduced by one or two levels, depending on the extent of the shortfall.

Questionable Sources

Questionable sources display extreme bias, propaganda, unreliable sourcing, or a lack of transparency. They may also engage in disseminating fake news for profit or influence. Such sources are generally unreliable and require fact-checking on an article-by-article basis. A source lacking transparency in mission, ownership, or authorship is automatically categorized as questionable. Additionally, sources from countries with significant government censorship may be deemed questionable.

Note: The term “fake news” is specifically used for entirely hoax-based websites. Hate groups are also included in this category. Sources with low or very low factual reporting are typically listed as questionable, as are factually mixed sources that engage in conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, or hate speech.

Conspiracy/Pseudoscience

This category is for sources that disseminate unverified information related to known conspiracies or pseudoscientific claims. For instance, sources denying human-influenced climate change or promoting anti-vaccination stances are labeled as pseudoscience. According to the Stanford Encyclopedia of Philosophy on Science and Pseudoscience, there’s a consensus among knowledge disciplines that certain topics, like creationism and climate change denial, are pseudosciences. To be included in this category, a source’s primary focus must be on conspiracies or pseudoscience.

See our Pseudoscience Dictionary for more.

Traffic Estimates

Media Bias Fact Check pulls page views data from Similar Web to determine the amount of traffic a source receives. We also factor in subscribers for print media and market size for TV/Radio. If data is not available, we use the best estimate. Our categories are as follows: 

Minimal Traffic: Under 250 K page views/print/media market viewers per month
Medium Traffic: 250K to 3 million page views/print/media market viewers per month
High Traffic: Over 3 million page views/print/media market viewers per month

Fact-Checking

Media Bias/Fact Check rarely conducts original fact checks as many other sources are faster and do a better job. We primarily rely on fact-checkers affiliated with the International Fact-Checking Network ( IFCN). Below is their code of principles.

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC News) adheres to the International Fact-Checking Network Fact-checkers’ Code of Principles.  The Poynter Institute developed these principles to promote excellence and standardization in Fact-Checking.

MBFC News strictly adheres to the following principles for all fact checks:

1. A COMMITMENT TO NONPARTISANSHIP AND FAIRNESS
   We fact-check claims using the same standard for every fact check. We do not concentrate our fact-checking on any one side. We follow the same process for every fact check and let the evidence dictate our conclusions. We do not advocate or take policy positions on the issues we fact-check.
2. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF SOURCES
   We want our readers to be able to verify our findings themselves. We provide all sources in enough detail that readers can replicate our work, except in cases where a source’s personal security could be compromised. In such cases, we provide as much detail as possible.
3. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF FUNDING & ORGANIZATION
   We are transparent about our funding sources. If we accept funding from other organizations, we ensure that funders do not influence the conclusions we reach in our reports. We detail all key figures’ professional backgrounds in our organization and explain our organizational structure and legal status. We clearly indicate a way for readers to communicate with us.
4. A COMMITMENT TO TRANSPARENCY OF METHODOLOGY
   We explain the methodology we use to select, research, write, edit, publish and correct our fact checks. We encourage readers to send us claims to fact-check and are transparent on why and how we fact-check.
5. A COMMITMENT TO OPEN AND HONEST CORRECTIONS
   We publish our corrections policy and follow it scrupulously. We correct clearly and transparently in line with our corrections policy, seeking so far as possible to ensure that readers see the corrected version.

Source: Poynter

References

Alexander Dyck & Natalya Volchkova & Luigi Zingales, 2008. “The Corporate Governance Role of the Media: Evidence from Russia,” Journal of Finance, American Finance Association, vol. 63(3), pages 1093-1135, 06.

Baron, David P. “Persistent media bias.” Journal of Public Economics 90.1 (2006): 1-36.

Bolinger, Dwight. Language-the loaded weapon: the use and abuse of language today. Routledge, 2014.

Chun-Fang Chiang & Brian Knight, 2011. “Media Bias and Influence: Evidence from Newspaper Endorsements,” Review of Economic Studies, Oxford University Press, vol. 78(3), pages 795-820.

DellaVigna, Stefano and Ethan Kaplan. “The Fox News Effect: Media Bias and Voting.” Quarterly Journal of Economics 122 (August 2007): 1187-1234.

Entman, R. M. (2007), Framing Bias: Media in the Distribution of Power. Journal of Communication, 57: 163–173. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2006.00336.x

Eveland, W. P. and Shah, D. V. (2003), The Impact of Individual and Interpersonal Factors on Perceived News Media Bias. Political Psychology, 24: 101–117. doi:10.1111/0162-895X.00318

Farhi, Paul. How Biased is the Media Really. 27 April 2012. 20 November 2012. <http://www.washingtonpost.com/lifestyle/style/how-biased-is-the-media-really/2012/04/27/gIQA9jYLmT_story.html&gt;.

Gentzkow, Matthew and Jesse M. Shapiro. “Media Bias And Reputation,” Journal of Political Economy, 2006, v114(2,Apr), 280-316.

“How To Detect Bias In News Media.” FAIR. N.p., 2012. Web. 15 Feb. 2016.

Matthews, Jack. “The effect of loaded language on audience comprehension of speeches.” Communications Monographs 14.1-2 (1947): 176-186.

Morris, J. S. (2007), Slanted Objectivity? Perceived Media Bias, Cable News Exposure, and Political Attitudes^*. Social Science Quarterly, 88: 707–728. doi:10.1111/j.1540-6237.2007.00479.x

Nie, N. H., Miller, III, D. W., Golde, S., Butler, D. M. and Winneg, K. (2010), The World Wide Web and the U.S. Political News Market. American Journal of Political Science, 54: 428–439. doi:10.1111/j.1540-5907.2010.00439.x

Puglisi R, Snyder JM. Newspaper Coverage of Political Scandals. Journal of Politics. 2011;73(3):931-950.

Russell, Nick. “Morals and the Media Ethics in Canadien Journalism: Second Edition.” Vancouver: UBC Press, 2006.

S.I. Hayakawa, Alan Hayakawa. “Language in Thought and Action: Fifth Edition.” New York: Harcourt Brace Jovanovich,

Tewksbury, D., Jensen, J. and Coe, K. (2011), Video News Releases and the Public: The Impact of Source Labeling on the Perceived Credibility of Television News. Journal of Communication, 61: 328–348. doi:10.1111/j.1460-2466.2011.01542.x

The Quarterly Journal of Economics (2005) 120 (4): 1191-1237.doi: 10.1162/003355305775097542

Disclaimer: The methodology used by Media Bias Fact Check is our own.  It is not a tested scientific method.  It is meant as a simple guide for people to get an idea of a source’s bias.  Media Bias Fact Check will always review and change any factual errors when brought to our attention.  We make every effort to be as factual as possible.  Our goal is to have MBFC rated as least biased by our own criteria.

---

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

MBFC Ad-Free 

or

MBFC Donation

---

 

Last Updated on August 24, 2025 by Media Bias Fact Check