Fact check: Why is this website so biased and shitty and unreliable?

1. What people are actually claiming — a simple inventory that matters

Users who call a site “biased and unreliable” typically bundle several claims: that its coverage is systematically partial; that factual accuracy is poor or unchecked; and that institutional signals of trust — author credentials, funding transparency, corrections — are missing. Academic work on pandemic-era news finds coverage about countries was often non-objective and impartiality did not strongly correlate with reliability, which explains why users conflate tone and factual trustworthiness ^[1]. Other analyses formalize these complaints into discrete evaluative criteria such as content quality, political alignment, author credentials, and reputation ^{[4] [5]}.

2. What research says causes bias — don’t blame just one thing

Studies show bias and unreliability emerge from multiple, interacting causes: editorial intent and political alignment; weak editorial standards and fact-checking workflows; economic pressures that reward sensationalism; and human cognitive factors in audiences. The 2022 pandemic study found impartiality and reliability do not move together, so a site can read partisan while still having accurate facts, or be neutral in tone but lax on sourcing ^[1]. This complexity means calling a site “shitty” may be emotionally justified but is analytically incomplete without separating tone, sourcing, and governance.

3. How scholars and educators define “reliable” — practical criteria you can test

A 2024 synthesis identified 11 reliability criteria spanning content accuracy, political alignment, author transparency, reputation, and editorial practices; these lay out testable indicators readers can check ^[4]. Complementary rubrics like the CRAPP/CRAAP tests add practical elements: Currency, Relevance, Authority, Accuracy, Purpose/Perspective. Using these criteria exposes what a site lacks — for example, absent bylines, no corrections policy, or inconsistent sourcing — which directly explains perceptions of unreliability ^{[6] [7]}.

4. Tools fact-checkers use — SIFT and lateral reading change the conversation

Professional fact-checkers and educators recommend lateral reading and the SIFT method as quick, evidence-based habits: Stop, Investigate the source, Find better coverage, Trace claims to original context. These techniques shift evaluation from internal page signals to cross-checking with independent sources, which often quickly reveals bias or poor sourcing ^{[2] [8]}. These methods are designed to be rapid and practical for users complaining about a site’s quality rather than requiring deep media theory.

5. Transparency matters — what trustworthy outlets show you

The Trust Project and journalistic guidance emphasize that trust indicators — clear author bios, funding disclosures, editorial standards, and visible corrections — are central to perceived reliability. A site may be factually accurate but still register as untrustworthy if it hides ownership or lacks transparent editorial processes. The absence of these signals is one of the clearest, objective reasons a user will call a site biased or unreliable ^{[3] [5]}.

6. What you should do right now — actionable evaluation steps

Apply a mini-checklist: look for bylines and author credentials; search for corroboration using lateral reading; check funding and editorial policies; verify recent corrections; and test specific claims by tracing them to original sources. The SIFT method and CRAPP/CRAAP criteria provide stepwise actions for readers to move from frustration to evidence-based judgment. These steps convert the complaint “this site is biased” into verifiable findings about sourcing, ownership, and editorial practice ^{[2] [6]}.

7. Where different approaches disagree — limitations and agendas to watch for

Evaluation tools vary: academic studies emphasize systemic drivers of bias, while practical guides emphasize teachable reader behaviors. Some sources may emphasize political alignment as the primary issue, while others focus on procedural transparency. Be aware of agendas: rating organizations and media-literacy vendors may themselves favor specific frames about bias and correction, so cross-checking tools against independent fact-checkers mitigates those blind spots ^{[4] [7]}. No single test is definitive; triangulation matters.

8. Bottom line and an evidence-backed expectation for improvement

A website earns the label “biased and unreliable” when it repeatedly fails multiple reliability tests: poor sourcing, opaque funding, missing corrections, and persistent partisan framing. Research and professional guides give a clear remedy: assess the site against the 11 reliability criteria, use SIFT/lateral reading to verify claims, and demand visible trust indicators as outlined by the Trust Project. Following these steps will move the complaint from an emotional judgment to a documented evaluation you can act on or share with others ^{[4] [2] [3]}.