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: Which fact-checking organizations have evaluated Fox News' accuracy?
Executive Summary
Two of the provided documents point to Agence France-Presse (AFP) and Media Bias/Fact Check as organizations relevant to fact-checking practices, but none of the supplied materials actually contains a direct, standalone evaluation of Fox News’s overall accuracy. The available analyses instead highlight benchmarking of fact-check quality and aggregation practices, while several other supplied items discuss Fox News’s audience reach or editorial behavior without naming specific independent fact-check verdicts on the network’s reporting [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. Why the supplied material fails to answer the question directly — a short accounting of the evidence gap
The materials you provided do not include primary fact checks of Fox News’ accuracy, and the strongest claims concern the quality of fact-checkers or platforms rather than evaluations of Fox specifically. One analysis praises AFP’s fact-checking as a benchmark, suggesting it can be used comparatively but not reporting an AFP assessment of Fox News’s accuracy; that means the dataset only points to who might serve as a benchmark rather than showing they evaluated Fox [1]. Another record describes Media Bias/Fact Check’s role aggregating fact-checks and relying on International Fact-Checking Network signatories, which again speaks to methodology and curation rather than a concrete verdict on Fox [2]. These gaps are central: the documents reference fact-checking infrastructure, not Fox-specific accuracy reports [1] [2].
2. Who the provided sources identify as credible fact‑checking or aggregation actors
The text identifies Agence France-Presse (AFP) as a benchmark for fact-check quality and highlights Media Bias/Fact Check as an aggregator that collects work from signatories of the International Fact‑Checking Network. Both entries imply institutional roles: AFP as a producer of branded fact checks and Media Bias/Fact Check as a curator of third-party verifications, which can be used to evaluate news outlets when those organizations produce or compile assessments [1] [2]. The available content confirms these actors’ relevance to fact-checking ecosystems without showing they applied those resources directly to Fox News.
3. What other supplied items say about Fox News — engagement metrics and editorial critique instead of formal fact-checks
Several supplied analyses discuss Fox News in contexts unrelated to formal accuracy labelling. One entry highlights Fox News’ strong multi‑platform engagement and YouTube viewership in mid‑September 2025, which is about reach rather than truthfulness [3]. Another item compiles unrelated web content and advertisements, offering no evaluative substance [5]. A different source is a general critique of Fox’s coverage of the Trump administration, alleging editorial choices that give political actors more favorable treatment, but that critique is normative commentary and not a methodical, sourced fact-check tally of errors or corrections [4]. Together these pieces illustrate commentary and audience data, not systematic accuracy assessments.
4. Timeline perspective — dates and what they imply about available information
The most recent dates in your dataset occur in late 2025 and early 2026: the AFP benchmarking mention is dated 2025‑09‑28 and the Media Bias/Fact Check reference is dated 2025‑09‑14, while a corporate announcement about Fox News’s YouTube leadership is dated 2025‑09‑16 and an unrelated item is dated 2026‑01‑01 [1] [2] [3] [6]. These timestamps show that the material is contemporary but focused on institutional roles and audience metrics during that period. The absence of direct fact‑checking reports on Fox within those dates indicates the dataset’s coverage stops short of delivering the specific evaluations you asked about.
5. Competing viewpoints and potential agendas evident in the dataset
The materials reflect different agendas: AFP’s benchmarking piece promotes fact‑check quality as a standard, Media Bias/Fact Check positions itself as an aggregator that emphasizes networked standards, corporate releases underline audience dominance, and opinion pieces critique editorial bias [1] [2] [3] [4]. These perspectives can coexist without resolving the factual question of Fox News’ accuracy because each source treats the topic from its institutional angle—methodology, curation, market performance, or political critique—rather than producing a comparative accuracy score based on a common rubric.
6. What is missing — the specific fact‑checking organizations and verdicts you likely expected
Notably absent from the provided analyses are direct mentions of widely cited independent fact‑checking organizations issuing labeled evaluations of Fox News articles or programs—for example, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, The Associated Press Fact Check, Reuters Fact Check, or Snopes. The dataset does not include their verdicts, nor does it include a compiled list of corrections or error rates for Fox News, leaving the central question unanswered within this corpus [1] [2] [6]. This omission is decisive: you cannot derive which organizations evaluated Fox News’ accuracy from the supplied documents because those evaluations aren’t present.
7. Next steps to produce a definitive, sourced answer
To answer your original question comprehensively, you should collect primary fact‑check items from major fact‑checking organizations and aggregators—