How do Ad Fontes Media and AllSides differ in methodology when rating news outlets like Newsmax?
Executive summary
Ad Fontes Media and AllSides both produce popular media-bias charts but use distinct methods: Ad Fontes conducts multi-analyst content analysis that rates outlets on two axes—political bias and reliability—while AllSides maps outlets primarily on a left–center–right bias scale without an explicit reliability rating, and emphasizes broader coverage of outlets [1] [2]. Both organizations publish their methodologies and have attracted praise and scrutiny from media scholars and fact‑checking organizations [3].
1. How Ad Fontes measures bias and "reliability" — a granular, multi‑analyst content analysis
Ad Fontes rates news outlets on two dimensions—political bias (left to right) and reliability (vertical axis)—using a structured content‑analysis methodology created by founder Vanessa Otero and refined with a politically diverse team of analysts who score articles across multiple categories; the organization says panels of analysts review multiple articles per outlet and that the methodology includes seven categories for bias and eight for reliability [1] [4]. The company describes recruiting and training over 50 analysts and running multi‑analyst rating projects that evaluated thousands of articles to add and update sources, and it provides video and written methodological documentation for users who want a deep dive [1].
2. How AllSides frames bias — broader placement on a left/center/right spectrum
AllSides’ Media Bias Chart places outlets on a left/center/right scale and emphasizes breadth—its chart covers roughly 1,400 U.S. outlets in the version cited—focusing on political slant rather than a separate reliability score, and it is widely used as a comparative, interactive tool for spotting ideological placement [2]. Independent reporting and library guides note that AllSides’ chart does not attempt to score factual accuracy or reliability the way Ad Fontes does, marking a clear methodological divergence between the two projects [2].
3. Sampling, panels and transparency: where methods converge and diverge
Both projects claim transparent methodologies and use panels to mitigate individual analyst bias; press coverage and experts have praised the stated methods for both organizations while cautioning that charts are only as good as their procedures [3]. Ad Fontes emphasizes multi‑analyst content coding of articles—sometimes dozens of stories for high‑profile outlets—and publishes methodological FAQs and explainer videos to show that process [1] [3]. Available reporting on AllSides highlights its interactive chart and scale but the sources provided here do not detail AllSides’ exact article‑by‑article sampling in the same granular way that Ad Fontes documents it, so direct comparison on sampling cadence and coder training is limited by the reporting at hand [5] [2].
4. Outputs, presentation and what each chart communicates to users
Ad Fontes’ two‑axis chart communicates both directional political slant and a separate judgment about reliability, allowing users to see, for example, whether an outlet is ideologically extreme but high in factual rigor or ideologically central yet lower in reliability; the interactive chart and web app let users inspect placements and underlying writeups [5] [1]. AllSides’ single‑axis approach offers a simpler visual shorthand for ideological placement across a wide roster of outlets, a strength for users seeking a quick orientation on slant but a limitation when the question is about factual reliability, which AllSides’ chart does not systematically rate according to the sources provided [2].
5. Criticism, conflicts and funding transparency to weigh the differences
Both projects face questions about human judgment and snapshot timing—outlets change and any chart is a temporal assessment—and both have been discussed critically in academic and librarian circles for limits and uses [3] [4]. Ad Fontes has disclosed revenue streams that include paid research requests, donations and crowdfunding on WeFunder, a detail reported in coverage that observers can use to judge potential conflicts of interest; the reporting here notes Ad Fontes responding to critiques and defending its methodology while acknowledging limits [3] [4]. The sources assembled for this analysis document AllSides’ focus and reach but do not provide the same level of third‑party detail about funding or granular coder procedures, so readers should consult each organization’s methodology pages directly for up‑to‑date disclosures [2] [1].