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 Works in Progress as Least Biased based on its apolitical, empirically grounded coverage emphasizing scientific, technological, and economic innovation. We also rate it High for factual reporting due to its transparent authorship, evidence-based methodology, and absence of failed fact checks. Although not strictly a science journal, its rigorous, pro-science editorial philosophy reinforces its credibility.
Detailed Report
Bias Rating: LEAST BIASED (1.5)
Factual Reporting: HIGH (1.0)
Country: United Kingdom
MBFC’s Country Freedom Rating: MOSTLY FREE
Media Type: Magazine
Traffic/Popularity: Medium Traffic
MBFC Credibility Rating: HIGH CREDIBILITY
History
Works in Progress is a digital and print magazine founded in 2020, now owned by Stripe. It describes itself as “a magazine of new and underrated ideas to improve the world,” focusing on economic growth, technology, cities, medical research, metascience, and public policy. Its founding editors include Sam Bowman, Saloni Dattani, Ben Southwood, and Nick Whitaker, whose backgrounds range from policy research (Mercatus Center, Policy Exchange) to data science and genetics. The publication is headquartered in London and publishes six long-form issues annually.
Read our profile on the UK’s media and government.
Funded by / Ownership
The magazine is part of Stripe, the global financial technology company, which provides institutional backing while allowing editorial independence. Editors note their publication carries no advertising, and content is supported through Stripe’s funding and subscriptions to its print edition and newsletter, Works in Progress News.
Analysis / Bias
Works in Progress focuses on empirical, explanatory journalism emphasizing innovation and scientific advancement over ideology. Its writing style aligns with a “pro-progress” and “pro-science” mindset but avoids partisan framing. Articles such as “How a Norwegian Chemist Defeated Lead Paint” and “The First Non-Opioid Painkiller” demonstrate a detailed, evidence-based narrative approach similar to Our World in Data or Aeon Magazine. Both pieces focus on technological and scientific progress — chronicling discoveries through historical and technical contexts, using citations, expert commentary, and a neutral tone.
While the magazine’s themes, economic dynamism, scientific research, and innovation, may overlap with center-right economic optimism or “progress studies,” its editorial tone is non-partisan, empirical, and intellectually open. Contributors include academics, policy researchers, and writers known for data-driven analysis rather than political commentary. The publication’s emphasis on human progress, scientific rigor, and the material betterment of civilization places it within the “pro-science / evidence-based” media class, comparable to Nautilus rather than political outlets.
Failed Fact Checks
- None in the Last 5 years
Overall, we rate Works in Progress as Least Biased based on its apolitical, empirically grounded coverage emphasizing scientific, technological, and economic innovation. We also rate it High for factual reporting due to its transparent authorship, evidence-based methodology, and absence of failed fact checks. Although not strictly a science journal, its rigorous, pro-science editorial philosophy reinforces its credibility. (D. Van Zandt 10/25/2025)
Source: https://worksinprogress.co/
Last Updated on October 25, 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