Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
Is factually extremely biased progressive slop
Executive summary
You characterized the phrase “is factually extremely biased progressive slop” — a sweeping dismissal —; available Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) profiles show many outlets described as left‑ or progressive‑leaning but with a range of factual ratings from High to Mixed, not a universal label of “extremely biased” or uniformly untruthful (examples: Progressive International Left‑biased, Mixed factual reporting; The Progressive Left‑biased, Mostly Factual) [1] [2].
1. What critics mean by “extremely biased progressive slop”
Those words express two accusations: strong ideological bias and poor factual reliability. MBFC’s catalog shows several outlets with explicit left or progressive editorial slants — for example Progressive International, The Nation, Democracy Now!, and others are rated Left or Left‑Center for bias — which explains why critics use the term “progressive” to flag ideological orientation [1] [3] [4]. At the same time, MBFC does not treat all left‑leaning outlets identically on factual rigor; it separates “bias” from “factual reporting,” which matters when evaluating whether criticism of accuracy is fair [3] [4].
2. Evidence on factual reliability is mixed, not uniformly damning
MBFC’s assessments in the provided samples show a spectrum: some left‑leaning outlets are rated High for factual reporting (e.g., The Nation and Democracy Now! are rated High) while others are Mixed or Mostly Factual (e.g., Progressive International is Mixed; The Progressive is Mostly Factual) [1] [3] [4] [2]. That contradicts a blanket claim that “progressive” equals “extremely biased and factually unreliable” because MBFC documents left‑leaning outlets that maintain strong sourcing and high credibility [3] [4].
3. Where the strongest criticisms come from in MBFC’s notes
When MBFC flags a site as particularly problematic, it cites specific issues: extreme loaded headlines, poor sourcing, republishing from factually mixed sites, lack of transparency, or use of questionable sources — e.g., Progress Tribune is described as “extreme left bias” with frequent loaded headlines and opaque ownership; Progressive International is criticized for republishing from factually mixed sources [5] [1]. Those specific, verifiable critiques support calling particular outlets “biased” or “poorly sourced,” but they are site‑specific, not a universal indictment of all progressive journalism [5] [1].
4. Examples of left‑leaning outlets with strong factual records
MBFC highlights several left‑of‑center outlets that it nevertheless rates as High or Mostly Factual for reporting. The Nation and ProPublica, for instance, are described as left‑leaning yet factually high due to proper sourcing and evidence‑based reporting; Talking Points Memo is noted as Mostly Factual despite moderate progressive bias [3] [6] [7]. Those examples show readers why nuance matters: ideological slant and factual accuracy are related but distinct metrics [3] [7].
5. How to read “bias” labels responsibly
MBFC’s system separates bias (story selection, editorial slant, loaded wording) from factual reporting (sourcing, fact‑check record). A site rated Left but High for factual reporting means it often favors progressive causes while generally sourcing accurately; a Left and Mixed site indicates both slant and questions about sourcing or republishing practices [3] [1]. Therefore calling all progressive outlets “extremely biased slop” collapses two separate evaluations into one polemical phrase and overlooks documented distinctions [3] [1].
6. Competing viewpoints and implicit agendas
MBFC itself frames outlets along ideological lines and may be used by critics on either side to support their claims; for example, people skeptical of progressive media can cite outlets MBFC flags for poor sourcing (Progress Tribune, Progressive International), while defenders point to MBFC’s High factual ratings for other left outlets (The Nation, ProPublica) [5] [1] [3] [6]. The agenda implicit in broad dismissals may be rhetorical: to delegitimize entire media ecosystems rather than target verifiable faults at specific outlets [5] [1].
7. Bottom line and practical guidance for readers
If your complaint targets a specific publication, point to concrete examples of factual errors, sourcing failures, or opaque practices; MBFC’s entries provide those specifics for some sites (e.g., lack of sourcing, republished content) [5] [1]. If your complaint is about a genre — “progressive media” broadly — available MBFC profiles show that progressive outlets vary significantly in factual quality, so the blanket phrase “factually extremely biased progressive slop” is not supported by the sampled MBFC ratings alone [3] [2].
Limitations: the above relies solely on the MBFC excerpts you provided; available sources do not mention independent fact‑checks beyond those MBFC summaries or how other media‑rating organizations classify these same outlets (not found in current reporting).