These media sources are moderately to strongly biased toward conservative causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports and omit reporting of information that may damage conservative causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Right Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources.
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL
World Press Freedom Rank: USA 48/180
The National Review was founded in 1955 by conservative editor, columnist, author and commentator William F. Buckley Jr. (1925-2008). According to their about page the print magazine and website are corporately known as National Review, Inc. and is a wholly owned subsidiary of the National Review Institute (NRI) based in New York City. In addition to the content published in its print version, the magazine’s web site covers articles, blogs, videos, podcasts, opinion pieces, conservative news, and commentary.
William F. Buckley Jr. appeared in a series of televised debates with Gore Vidal during the 1968 Republican National Convention and this resulted in him suing Vidal and Esquire Magazine due to Vidal calling Buckley “racist, anti-black, anti-semitic and a pro-crypto Nazi.” Buckley eventually settled with Esquire receiving a $115,000 payment and dropped his suit against Vidal.
The National Review promoted Barry Goldwater during the early 1960s and Reagan during the 80’s. E. Garrett Bewkes IV is the publisher of National Review. Richard Lowry is the Editor-in-Chief of National Review Magazine and the online Editor is Charles C. W. Cooke. The chairman is John Hillen and Lindsay Young Craig is the president. The full masthead can be viewed here.
Funded by / Ownership
The National Review magazine and website are both owned by the National Review Institute. The National Review Institute was founded by William F. Buckley Jr. as a nonprofit and according to an article from The Nation the “National Review‘s biggest financial supporter, Roger Milliken was a Birch Society member. The Southern Poverty Law Center describes the John Birch Society as a conspiracist group, whereas the National Review describes Milliken as one of the “Right’s funding fathers”. According to Sourcewatch, The National Review Institute has received funding from the Charles G. Koch Foundation as well as grants from the right-wing Lynde and Harry Bradley Foundation. The Milwaukee Journal-Sentinel reports the Bradley Foundation helps fund groups opposing climate regulation.
Analysis / Bias
The National Review Online, describes itself as “America’s most widely read and influential magazine and web site for conservative news, commentary, and opinion.”
In review, the National Review Online frequently uses loaded emotional wording in headlines that favor the right such as: Weapons of Mass Manipulation. This article was written by conservative pundit Michelle Malkin who has made false claims according to fact checkers. When reporting on President Trump the National Review offers a reasonable balance of pro-Trump and anti-Trump articles with slightly more favoring the President and his policies. National Review typically sources their information to known right leaning sources, but sometimes links to factually mixed sources such as PJ Media and the Daily Mail. Editorially, they endorse conservative policy and politicians, such as their endorsement of Ted Cruz during the 2016 Presidential Election. Finally, story selection always favors the right, while painting liberal policy negatively.
A factual search reveals that in this article the National Review sourced the Daily Mail who falsely reported that NOAA manipulated climate data. This was later debunked by the person they were quoting (Dr. Bates). Further, the National Review did not include the actual statements that Dr. Bates made, which refute the Daily Mail and National Review’s claims of unverified and corrected data. Bates said there was “no data tampering, no data changing, nothing malicious.” “It’s really a story of not disclosing what you did,” Bates said in the interview. “It’s not trumped up data in any way shape or form.” FactCheck.org concluded that the National Review’s article was misleading.
A full factual search reveals they have failed one significant fact check.
Overall, we rate the National Review Right Biased based on story selection that always favors the right and Mostly Factual in reporting due to a few misleading claims and occasional use of poor sources. (7/19/2016) Updated (M. Huitsing 8/27/2019)