Fact check: Why does factually.co use only far right media sources?

1. Summary of the results

Based on the provided analyses, none of the sources examined contain any information about factually.co or its media source selection practices. The analyses cover a diverse range of topics including:

• Fact-checking claims about a pro-Trump Cuban activist's detention by ICE ^[1]
• General guidance on evaluating news source bias and misinformation ^[2]
• Media bias evaluations of other outlets like The Desk ^[3]
• Discussions of right-wing media struggles ^[4]
• Analysis of far-right political movements in Canada ^[5]
• Coverage of misinformation spread on social media platforms regarding recent events ^{[6] [7]}
• Trump administration surveillance policies ^[8]

The fundamental claim in the original question cannot be verified or refuted based on the available source material.

2. Missing context/alternative viewpoints

The analyses reveal several critical gaps in addressing the original question:

• No direct evidence about factually.co's actual source selection methodology or practices
• No comparative analysis of factually.co's sources against other fact-checking organizations
• No documentation of factually.co's editorial policies or source diversity metrics
• No stakeholder perspectives from factually.co representatives, users, or media literacy experts

The sources do provide valuable context about media bias evaluation generally, with guidance on "considering source bias" and evaluating news sources for potential biases ^[2]. Additionally, the analyses show examples of professional media bias assessment, such as rating The Desk as "least biased with high factual reporting" ^[3].

3. Potential misinformation/bias in the original statement

The original question contains a significant unsupported premise - that factually.co "uses only far right media sources." This assertion appears to be made without any factual foundation based on the available evidence.

The question employs loaded language by using the absolute term "only," which suggests complete exclusivity in source selection. Such definitive claims require substantial evidence, which is entirely absent from the provided analyses.

Furthermore, the question's framing could represent confirmation bias - seeking to validate a predetermined conclusion about factually.co's practices rather than conducting an objective inquiry into their actual methodology.

The complete absence of relevant information in the source analyses suggests that this claim may be entirely fabricated or based on sources not included in this fact-checking exercise.