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 latest fact-checking scores for Fox News from independent organizations?
Executive summary
Major independent media-rating and fact‑checking organizations give Fox News consistently critical credibility or reliability scores: Media Bias/Fact Check labels Fox News “Right” bias with a Low factual reporting/credibility rating (listed as “LOW CREDIBILITY”) and specific numeric ratings in its profile (Bias 8.0; Factual Reporting 7.6) [1]. Ad Fontes Media places Fox News on its Media Bias Chart with a measurable rightward bias and a reliability score based on sampled content (methodology described on its site) [2]. PolitiFact maintains an active archive of fact‑checks of Fox News statements and a network scorecard approach to tally Truth‑O‑Meter rulings on the network [3] [4] [5].
1. What concrete “scores” exist and what they mean
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) provides explicit numeric ratings for Fox News: a bias rating identified as “RIGHT (8.0)” and a factual reporting metric shown as “LOW (7.6),” and MBFC summarizes its overall credibility as “LOW CREDIBILITY” in the Fox News profile [1]. Ad Fontes Media does not publish a single numeric “score” in the snippets here but uses a Media Bias Chart that yields a bias coordinate (scale −42 to +42) and a reliability ranking derived from multiple analyst panels and weighted sampling — this is the methodology Ad Fontes applies to place Fox News on their bias/reliability axes [2]. PolitiFact does not assign a single site‑level numeric credibility score in the material provided; instead it runs item‑level fact checks compiled on a Fox News Channel page and has historically produced network scorecards tallying the Truth‑O‑Meter rulings for claims aired on networks [3] [4] [5].
2. How these organizations reach their conclusions (methodology and scope)
MBFC’s Fox News profile interprets content patterns — noting that straight beat reporting can be accurate but is often overshadowed by opinion programming — and cites reasons such as promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, poor sourcing, and “numerous failed fact checks” in assigning its bias and factual ratings [1]. Ad Fontes Media explains that panels of left, right and center analysts rate representative samples of content and the site averages those article/show scores into an overall bias and reliability position on its chart; the site’s methodology emphasizes repeated, sampled review rather than single incident rulings [2]. PolitiFact focuses on claim‑by‑claim fact checking and compiles rulings into network scorecards to measure a network’s aggregate performance over time rather than a single numeric credibility grade [5].
3. What recent fact‑checks say about accuracy in practice
Independent fact‑checks have repeatedly flagged specific Fox News items. Reuters’ fact‑check of a 2021 election‑night graphic found the apparent drop in vote count was due to estimates and missing context rather than deliberate misreporting — an example where fact‑checkers corrected interpretation and added context to Fox coverage [6]. Euronews documented misleading use of Irish crime statistics by Fox News in 2025, saying selected figures were presented in ways that misrepresent official classifications — another instance of item‑level correction [7]. These itemized corrections feed into the broader ratings and credibility judgments made by MBFC, Ad Fontes and PolitiFact [6] [7] [1] [2] [3].
4. What the ratings do — and don’t — capture
The organizations’ outputs capture patterns: MBFC’s low factual rating signals systemic issues it identifies [1]; Ad Fontes’ charting captures where Fox sits on a spectrum of bias and relative reliability across different program types [2]; PolitiFact’s database records granular rulings on statements made on Fox [3] [4]. What the provided sources do not present is a single, consensus numeric “fact‑checking score” from a cross‑organization audit; available sources do not mention a unified, up‑to‑date scoreboard that combines MBFC, Ad Fontes and PolitiFact into one metric (not found in current reporting).
5. Competing perspectives and limitations of the evidence
MBFC’s writeup emphasizes opinion programming and failed fact checks as drivers of a low credibility rating [1]. Ad Fontes stresses balanced analyst panels and sampling to avoid partisan skew [2]. PolitiFact’s approach measures individual claims and aggregates them into scorecards, which can show different results depending on the selection of claims included [5]. Each organization has different implicit agendas: MBFC aims to classify bias and credibility across thousands of outlets [8], Ad Fontes focuses on charting bias/reliability visually using diverse analyst panels [2], and PolitiFact concentrates on claim verification and transparent rulings [3] [4]. These differing goals explain why their outputs are complementary rather than identical.
6. How to interpret this for media consumption
Treat MBFC and Ad Fontes as source‑level diagnostic tools that flag systematic tendencies (MBFC: right bias, low factual rating; Ad Fontes: rightward bias and measured reliability) and use PolitiFact’s item‑level rulings to verify specific claims aired by Fox News [1] [2] [3] [4]. For readers seeking a quick takeaway: MBFC labels Fox News as right‑biased with low credibility [1]; Ad Fontes places it right of center with lower reliability on parts of its output [2]; PolitiFact’s archives provide claim‑by‑claim Truth‑O‑Meter rulings you can consult for specific assertions [3] [4].
If you want, I can pull a recent set of PolitiFact rulings for Fox News from 2024–2025, list representative Ad Fontes chart coordinates (if available), or extract the latest MBFC profile text so you can compare the organizations’ language side‑by‑side.