LEAST BIASED
These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appeals to emotion or stereotypes). The reporting is factual and usually sourced. These are the most credible media sources. See all Least Biased Sources.
- Overall, we rate Open to Debate as least biased based on its commitment to presenting various and opposing opinions in debates. We also rate them as mostly factual in reporting rather than high based on the inability to verify the claims of debaters easily.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (-0.5)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.0)
Country: United States
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Founded in 2006 in New York City by Robert Rosenkranz, Open to Debate, originally known as Intelligence Squared, is a nonprofit organization that addresses political polarization through Oxford-style debates. These discussions draw inspiration from the UK’s Intelligence Squared and feature opposing viewpoints on important political, cultural, and social issues. The organization hosts weekly debates accessible via public radio, podcasts, and online, fostering respectful and insightful discourse.
Read our profile on the United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
Founded by Robert Rosenkranz, who had a background with the RAND Corporation, Open to Debate is primarily supported by contributions. In 2022, its revenue was about $2.18 million, with expenses around $2.45 million, as indicated by its Form 990 tax filings. This financial information is detailed in reports by ProPublica’s Nonprofit Explorer. Additionally, donations are a significant source of its revenue.
Analysis / Bias
Open to Debate employs a debate format for discussing political issues, aiming to offer balanced viewpoints by selecting diverse topics and debaters. However, our analysis is based on summaries and participant backgrounds, not full hour-long debate videos. We also analyzed a comedy event based on a provided transcript.
The debate “Mock Trial: Is Trump Guilty in the January 6th Case?” features Lanny Davis, a background in politics and law, and Sara Azari, a criminal defense attorney/legal analyst for CNN and prominent networks. While Davis is associated with liberal politics, Azari’s political leanings remain unclear. Our examination of Azari’s interview from the Women Criminal Defense Attorneys blog found no explicit references to her political leanings; her focus is on legal expertise and education. Legal experts Joel Cohen and Randall Eliason add depth, but their political affiliations are not explicitly known.
The Debate’s structure allows for in-depth exploration of arguments, but potential bias may arise from participants’ backgrounds and leanings. The Debate’s impartiality depends on moderation and cross-examiners’ effectiveness in balancing discussions.
Our analysis of Open to Debate, especially the “Mock Trial: Is Trump Guilty in the January 6th Case?” debate, is limited by video length and accessibility. We drew conclusions from the debate structure, participants’ backgrounds, and the platform’s overall approach. While these elements suggest an intention for balanced discussion, a full assessment of impartiality requires a thorough review of complete debate content. Therefore, while indications of a balanced approach are present, a definitive assessment of overall impartiality is not possible within this analysis.
Additionally, based on the provided transcript, we analyzed live comedy events from Open to Debate. The event “Is Wokeness Killing Comedy?” examines whether wokeness restricts comedians and stifles comedic creativity or enhances comedy by broadening its scope and promoting social consciousness. Both debaters provide differing viewpoints. Lou Perez argues that wokeness, focusing on power structures and the potential for censorship, harms comedic creativity and freedom. Michael Ian Black counters that comedy is more successful than ever, with wokeness contributing to thoughtfulness and inclusivity, expanding the range of voices in the field. The platform encourages balanced discussions and diverse viewpoints, aligning with Open to Debate’s commitment to encompassing multiple perspectives in its content.
While Open to Debate has not directly failed a fact-check, some of the debaters have failed fact-checks, such as Anthony Scaramucci, who was briefly Press Secretary for Former President Trump. Finally, it is also difficult to individually verify debaters’ claims as they may not always provide a source for the information they present.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Open to Debate as least biased based on its commitment to presenting various and opposing opinions in debates. We also rate them as mostly factual in reporting rather than high based on the inability to verify the claims of debaters easily. (M. Huitsing 01/17/2024) Updated (02/05/2026)
Source: https://opentodebate.org/
Last Updated on February 5, 2026 by Media Bias Fact Check
Do you appreciate our work? Please consider one of the following ways to sustain us.
or
Left vs. Right Bias: How we rate the bias of media sources