RIGHT-CENTER BIAS
These media sources are slight to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information but may require further investigation. See all Right-Center sources.
- Overall, we rate PERC as Right‑Center Biased, reflecting its free‑market environmental philosophy, and we rate its factual reporting as Mixed due to one-sided reporting that consistently favors deregulation and a lack of transparency by not disclosing their connections to the fossil fuel industry and business interests.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: RIGHT-CENTER (4.8)
Factual Reporting: MIXED (5.0)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: MEDIUM CREDIBILITY
History
PERC—the Property and Environment Research Center—is a Bozeman, Montana-based research organization that advocates for free‑market environmentalism. Established in 1980, PERC produces research and commentary on environmental policies, property rights, and market‑based approaches to environmental issues.
Read our profile on the United States media and government.
Funding / Ownership
PERC is a nonprofit organization, meaning it has no traditional owner. Loren Bough serves as the Board Chair, overseeing governance. The organization does not publicly disclose financial statements on its website, and its annual reports focus on activities and impact rather than financial transparency.
Research indicates that the Property and Environment Research Center (PERC) is primarily funded by foundations (90%), with additional contributions from individuals (8%) and corporations (2%). Notably, PERC has received significant funding from fossil fuel industry advocates, including ExxonMobil Foundation ($127,500), Charles G. Koch Charitable Foundation ($498,644), Claude R. Lambe Charitable Foundation ($130,000), and DonorsTrust ($211,250), a donor-advised fund frequently used to channel money to fossil fuel interests.
Analysis / Bias
PERC’s content is rooted in libertarian and free‑market ideology, emphasizing market‑driven solutions to environmental challenges. Its publications and commentary tend to advocate for limited government intervention in environmental policy. While its research is data‑driven and cites academic sources, its ideological framework introduces a clear right‑leaning bias.
For example, the article “Free Market Environmentalism, Elucidated” presents PERC’s ideological stance on environmental policy, arguing that market-driven solutions outperform government regulation. The article frames environmental challenges as problems best addressed through property rights and economic incentives, dismissing regulatory approaches as inefficient without engaging with counterarguments. It lacks empirical evidence or case studies demonstrating the superiority of free-market approaches and does not address situations where government intervention has been necessary to prevent environmental harm. By presenting free-market environmentalism as self-evident, the article functions more as ideological advocacy than a balanced policy analysis.
Similarly, the article “Fix Our Forests Act Explained” promotes a market-based approach to wildfire management, advocating for the privatization of forest restoration efforts. While it cites House Bill 471, which proposes changes to U.S. Forest Service policies, the article selectively frames the issue as a failure of bureaucratic inefficiency without acknowledging broader factors such as climate change, underfunding, or the role of private logging interests in exacerbating deforestation risks.
The article argues that reducing environmental regulations will lead to better forest management but fails to address potential consequences, such as increased commercial exploitation of public lands. By presenting deregulation as the only viable solution, the article ignores alternative policy approaches that balance conservation with responsible land use.
Both articles reflect PERC’s ideological commitment to free-market environmentalism, but their lack of critical engagement with opposing viewpoints, selective framing, and absence of independent data weaken their credibility.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the last 5 years.
Overall, we rate PERC as Right‑Center Biased, reflecting its free‑market environmental philosophy, and we rate its factual reporting as Mixed due to one-sided reporting that consistently favors deregulation and a lack of transparency by not disclosing their connections to the fossil fuel industry and business interests. (M. Huitsing 02/16/2025)
Source: https://perc.org/
Last Updated on February 16, 2025 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