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.
What are the criteria for evaluating media bias in news outlets like CNN?
Executive summary
Evaluations of media bias use repeatable criteria—language and framing, story selection and omission, sourcing and transparency, guest and viewpoint balance, and independent fact-check/reliability scores—as shown by major bias-raters and academic studies (e.g., bias scales and reliability measures used by Ad Fontes Media and others) [1] [2]. Different organizations weight those criteria differently: Media Bias/Fact Check emphasizes editorial positions and failed fact checks, Ad Fontes uses a numeric bias/reliability scale, and academic work measures bias via visible partisan actors and guest profiles [3] [1] [2].
1. What big evaluators measure — concrete categories, not opinions
Prominent evaluators break bias into discrete, measurable categories: ideological skew (left–right), reliability/factuality, language/loaded wording, sourcing and transparency, and balance of perspectives. Ad Fontes Media publishes a bias score and a reliability classification using a continuous scale for bias and separate reliability judgments [1]. Media Bias/Fact Check explicitly separates editorial/opinion tilt from straight reporting and notes factuality via fact-check history [3]. Academic work operationalizes bias by quantifying partisan actors and guest appearance patterns to see which viewpoints are visible on-air [2].
2. Language, framing, and “bias by omission” — how wording and what’s left out matter
Evaluators look for loaded words and framing that push emotion or stereotype instead of neutral description, and they flag “bias by omission” when important viewpoints, casualty figures, or contextual facts are not presented. Media Bias/Fact Check calls out loaded wording and omission as drivers of their “left-center” rating for CNN, noting both editorial host positions and omissions in straight reporting as distinct issues [3].
3. Sourcing, fact checks, and reliability scores — how truth claims are judged
A key strand of assessment is factual reliability: whether claims are sourced, whether corrections are issued, and whether independent fact-checkers have found errors. Ad Fontes separates bias from reliability and labels outlets along both dimensions [1]. Media Bias/Fact Check flags instances where anchors failed fact checks and considers those in the overall factual rating [3]. Ground News aggregates those reliability ratings to produce combined factuality measures [4].
4. Guest selection and visibility of partisan actors — the academic lens
Academic studies quantify bias by examining who appears on shows and which partisan actors are visible. The Stanford/PNAS approach used in “Measuring dynamic media bias” shows that guest composition and speaker utterances create measurable ideological patterns across programs—so bias can be operationally detected by who gets airtime [2] [5].
5. Methodology differences and weighting — why different raters disagree
Different organizations use different methods and weights, producing different labels for the same outlet. Ad Fontes uses numerical bias scores and separate reliability judgments [1]. AllSides produces a bias meter (reported as −1.3 for CNN online) and emphasizes crowd- and editorial-based review [6]. Media Bias/Fact Check combines editorial analysis, fact-check history, and a weighted scoring system in its methodology (noting a new methodology rollout in 2025) [7] [3]. These methodological differences explain why one rater may call an outlet “skews left” while another gives a milder “lean left” label [1] [6] [3].
6. Common red flags evaluators use when assessing a specific outlet (like CNN)
Evaluators watch for: consistent editorial positions by hosts (separable from news reporting), repeated failed fact checks, opaque sourcing or lack of corrections, disproportionate guest ideologies, and omission of key data or perspectives [3] [1] [2]. Media Bias/Fact Check specifically cites instances where anchors’ statements and a 2025 defamation ruling affected its view of CNN’s factual track record [3].
7. How to apply these criteria yourself — practical, sourceable checks
Check article language for loaded words and omitted facts; compare coverage of the same event across outlets to spot selection bias; review sourcing and hyperlinks for primary documents; scan guest lists for ideological skew; and consult multiple raters’ bias and reliability scores (Ad Fontes, Media Bias/Fact Check, AllSides, Ground News) to triangulate an assessment [1] [3] [6] [4].
8. Limitations and competing perspectives you must accept
No universal scientific formula exists for bias; raters’ results reflect choices about what to weight and how to operationalize terms like “balance” and “reliability” [7]. Academic measures focus on visibility of partisan actors and may miss subtler framing effects; crowd- or editor-based systems can reflect their own institutional biases [2] [6]. Evaluators sometimes disagree about the same outlet—Ad Fontes, AllSides, Media Bias/Fact Check and aggregators like Ground News place CNN variously from “skews left” to “lean left,” illustrating real methodological divergence [1] [6] [3] [4].
If you want, I can: (a) turn these criteria into a short checklist you can use to rate a single article or segment; or (b) apply the checklist to a recent CNN article you provide and show how different criteria affect an overall judgment.