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.
Fact check: Factually is so very clearly biased towards the right. how do you explain that
Executive Summary
Your allegation that an entity’s fact-checking is “so very clearly biased towards the right” breaks into two testable claims: that the fact-checking displays a measurable right-leaning bias, and that that bias explains specific judgments. Recent methodological research warns that word choice (euphemisms/dysphemisms) can skew truth assessments and be mistaken for ideological tilt, while media-right critiques argue selective evidence and framing produce opposing bias claims; a balanced reading requires separating linguistic framing effects from systemic partisan skew [1] [2] [3].
1. How much of the charge is about words, not politics?
Studies of automated or human fact-checking show judgmental language—euphemisms and dysphemisms—shapes readers’ perception of truth independently from explicit political labels. The PolBiX paper (Sep 18, 2025) demonstrates that an evaluator’s use of framing words can systematically alter accuracy scores, suggesting apparent partisan leanings may reflect x-phemistic patterns rather than policy alignment. This means apparent rightward tilt can sometimes be a byproduct of lexical choices rather than deliberate ideological favoritism, and distinguishing the two requires granular linguistic analysis alongside political coding [1].
2. Why critics from the left and right both see bias
Accusations come from across the spectrum because selection and framing respond differently to partisan expectations: some critique studies for undercounting left-wing incidents, while others highlight overemphasis on right-wing threats. A recent piece accusing liberals of depending on skewed studies argued that certain reports exclude key events and misrepresent data to minimize left-wing extremism (Sep 22, 2025). Conversely, mainstream-media critiques find that right-wing populist rhetoric frequently amplifies claims of media bias, increasing complaint volume even where editorial standards exist [2] [3]. The result: high perception of bias, not necessarily consistent with measured bias.
3. What journalists’ standards claim versus public perception
Major news organizations publicly commit to independence and nonpartisanship, setting editorial rules intended to separate fact from opinion and to present multiple perspectives. Outlets such as the Associated Press and Reuters explicitly codify accuracy, fairness, and transparency as core values, and journalism guides reiterate neutrality principles (no dates listed for some institutional pages). Those formal standards create institutional defenses against systematic partisanship, but they do not eliminate reader mistrust, selective sourcing, or framing errors that feed perceptions of rightward bias [4] [5] [6].
4. Examples where methodology—not motive—explains disputes
Disagreements often hinge on data selection and operational definitions. Critics alleging bias against progressives cite examples like contested handling of extremist incident counts and source choices; defenders point to standard editorial criteria and verification thresholds. Aggregators and platforms attempt to mediate by displaying cross-spectrum sourcing—Ground News’s model (Sep 8, 2025) is one such attempt—but critics argue these tools can still obscure methodological choices that drive divergent narratives. Evaluating bias therefore requires examining sample frames, inclusion rules, and how euphemistic language alters perceived severity [7].
5. Who benefits when “fact checkers” are portrayed as biased?
Political actors and media entrepreneurs gain strategic advantage by claiming media bias. Right-wing leaders who denounce expertise and "everyone is lying" narratives undermine public trust in institutions, a tactic that can inoculate supporters against factual correction (Jan 2, 2025). Similarly, partisan outlets can amplify select critiques of mainstream fact-checking to delegitimize unfavorable findings. Identifying these incentives clarifies that accusations of right-leaning bias might be deployed as political tools regardless of the evaluators’ actual practices [8].
6. What a robust evaluation would require
A conclusive determination needs multi-method evidence: quantitative coding of verdicts by partisan valence, linguistic analysis of evaluative language, and replication across independent raters. Studies must date and contextualize findings, control for topic distribution (e.g., more items about one party), and disclose inclusion criteria. PolBiX's linguistic findings (Sep 18, 2025) underscore this: without controlling for x-phemisms, conclusions about ideological skew risk conflating style with substance. Independent audits combining these approaches are the gold standard for settling bias claims [1].
7. Bottom line and recommended next steps
The claim that fact-checking is “clearly biased towards the right” is plausible as a perception but not definitively proven without deeper, multi-source analysis that separates linguistic framing from partisan selection. To move forward, review recent audits and methodology-focused studies, demand transparency on sampling and editorial rules, and commission independent replication of verdict distributions by political valence; this approach will reveal whether patterns reflect language-driven distortion, selection bias, or true ideological tilt [1] [4] [3].