Which outlets does Ad Fontes list as most 'reliable' on its interactive Media Bias Chart and how are those ratings derived?
Executive summary
Ad Fontes’ Interactive Media Bias Chart ranks outlets on two axes — political bias (left–right) and reliability — and places mainstream, center-leaning outlets near the top of the chart; the site specifically notes the BBC as an example of a source “near the top middle” while also acknowledging not every major outlet appears on every edition [1] [2]. The chart’s reliability scores are produced by multi-analyst content analysis panels with an explicit scoring scale (0–64) and thresholds for “acceptable” and “good” reliability, and users who want the actual ranked list are pointed to the interactive chart itself [3] [4] [5].
1. What “most reliable” means on the chart
Ad Fontes defines reliability as a quantitative score derived from content analysis and plots that score on the vertical axis of the Media Bias Chart; numerically the organization uses a 0–64 reliability scale and characterizes scores above 24 as generally acceptable and above 32 as generally good, which is how the chart signals which outlets are “most reliable” [4] [2].
2. Which outlets appear at the top — and the limits of available reporting
Public-facing descriptions of the chart emphasize that center or mainstream outlets tend to occupy the top-center region of the pyramid and cite the BBC as an example of a source “near the top middle,” but the sources provided here do not publish a complete, extractable list of “most reliable” outlets in text form; the definitive, regularly updated placement of individual outlets is available via Ad Fontes’ Interactive Media Bias Chart web app and downloadable chart images [1] [5] [2]. Ad Fontes also signals that the chart does not include every possible outlet, which means absence from the image is not necessarily a reliability judgment [1].
3. How Ad Fontes derives reliability ratings — the process in plain terms
Ad Fontes uses multi-analyst content analysis where panels of analysts with politically diverse viewpoints rate individual pieces of content; each piece is evaluated by a balanced panel (typically representing left, center and right perspectives), the panel discusses and averages their scores, and those item-level ratings are aggregated into an outlet’s overall reliability and bias scores [3] [6] [7]. The methodology evolved from a single-analyst model into a team-based system specifically to mitigate individual bias and make the process more reproducible [3].
4. What analysts actually rate — granularity and categories
The organization’s approach is granular: analysts score discrete content items (articles, episodes, programs) across multiple reliability-related factors and bias categories, then translate those item-level judgments into the two-axis scores shown on the chart; the underlying methodology materials describe multiple categories of bias and reliability that feed the final scores [3] [8].
5. Checks, partners and how the chart is used
Ad Fontes partners with organizations (for example AAM in an advertiser-facing product) to present curated interactive lists and has tools aimed at educators, businesses and advertisers who use the reliability scores for inclusion lists or research; AAM describes the same piece-by-panel rating process and notes that publishers participating in certification are prioritized for inclusion on some partner-facing interactive displays [6] [9]. Ad Fontes also markets memberships and resources (News Nerd memberships, downloadable charts), which helps fund updates and wider inclusion of different media types [9] [10].
6. Caveats, criticisms and alternative viewpoints
Scholars and journalists have critiqued the chart’s limits: early versions based on few stories were questioned for sampling breadth, and some researchers have described the chart more as a popular “meme” than a rigorous literacy tool, prompting Ad Fontes’ founder and advisers to defend and refine the methodology; those debates are part of the public record around the tool’s credibility and evolution [8]. Practically, critics point out any snapshot-based rating can lag outlets’ changes over time and that human analysts — even when balanced by panel composition — introduce subjectivity that Ad Fontes attempts to mitigate through its multi-analyst system [3] [8] [11].
7. Recommended next step to see the actual ranked outlets
Because the most up-to-date placements and the full set of outlets rated are delivered interactively and in downloadable chart images rather than in a single text list in the sources provided here, anyone seeking the concrete list of which specific outlets rank as most reliable should consult Ad Fontes’ Interactive Media Bias Chart or the latest flagship chart image directly on Ad Fontes’ site [5] [2].