LEFT BIAS
These media sources are moderate to strongly biased toward liberal causes through story selection and/or political affiliation. They may utilize strong loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by appealing to emotion or stereotypes), publish misleading reports, and omit information that may damage liberal causes. Some sources in this category may be untrustworthy. See all Left Bias sources.
- Overall, we rate the San Francisco Public Press as left-biased due to its focus on progressive issues like social equity and DEI, aligning with progressive ideologies. While generally factual and well-sourced, its advocacy-driven approach often results in one-sided narratives, earning a Mostly Factual rating.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEFT (-6.4)
Factual Reporting: MOSTLY FACTUAL (2.2)
Country: USA
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Organization/Foundation
Traffic/Popularity: Minimal Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
The San Francisco Public Press was founded in 2009 as a nonprofit, noncommercial news organization that produces public-interest journalism. It focuses on topics such as housing, environmental protection, public health, and transportation, aiming to serve historically underserved communities. The organization operates its website, the KSFP-FM radio station, and produces the Civic podcast, which emphasizes investigative journalism for local communities.
Read our profile on United States government and media.
Funded by / Ownership
The San Francisco Public Press is a 501(c)(3) nonprofit funded by public donations and institutional grants. Key supporters include the San Francisco Foundation (sff.org) and The Reva and David Logan Foundation, which focus on community investment and investigative journalism. Key leadership includes Executive Director Lila LaHood and Senior Editor and co-founder Michael Stoll.
Analysis / Bias
The San Francisco Public Press strongly emphasizes progressive priorities, including affordable housing, climate resilience, racial equity, and advocating for underserved communities. Its reporting reflects a solutions-oriented framework but often lacks critical analysis of the Democratic leadership that dominates California politics.
For example, in the article “Encampment Sweeps Cause Homeless People to Lose IDs, Access to Services, and Voting Rights,” the Public Press critiques the impacts of homelessness encampment sweeps, emphasizing systemic failures that disproportionately harm vulnerable populations. While the reporting emphasizes the adverse effects on homeless people and their ability to access resources, it does not critically examine the role of city and state Democratic leadership in perpetuating or addressing these challenges.
Similarly, in “California Ballot Asks Voters to Invest in Climate Solutions,” the outlet focuses on the potential benefits of a $10 billion climate resilience bond, presenting perspectives from policymakers and environmental advocates. However, The piece does not assess how effective the proposed climate resilience measures are likely to be or whether there are metrics in place to measure their success. The outlet leans heavily toward the benefits of the bond without critically examining its potential drawbacks or alternative approaches. Including these considerations would give readers a more comprehensive understanding of the proposal.
Regarding sourcing, the San Francisco Public Press relies on credible sources, including government publications like California’s DHCS flyer, local government documents like San Francisco’s HSH resolution, and nonprofit organizations. In summary, its focus on systemic issues and the promotion of Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion (DEI) reflects a progressive orientation, as stated above. However, it sometimes prioritizes advocacy perspectives over examining the effectiveness of current policies and governance.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate the San Francisco Public Press as left-biased due to its focus on progressive issues like social equity and DEI, aligning with progressive ideologies. While generally factual and well-sourced, its advocacy-driven approach often results in one-sided narratives, earning a Mostly Factual rating. (M. Huitsing 11/24/2024)
Source: https://www.sfpublicpress.org/
Last Updated on November 24, 2024 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