Which specific Fox News programs or hosts receive the lowest accuracy ratings from watchdogs?
Executive summary
Watchdog scorecards and fact‑check archives show that Fox News as a network has a substantially higher share of false ratings for on‑air claims than several peers: PunditFact/PolitiFact found 58% of checked Fox pundit claims rated Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire in one network scorecard [1], and their earlier tally showed 31% of Fox claims were False and 9% Pants on Fire [2]. Media‑bias assessors also give Fox a “Low” factual rating and categorize much of its opinion programming as propagandistic [3].
1. Network‑level watchdog ratings: the big headline
Fact‑checking projects by PolitiFact/PunditFact have consistently flagged Fox’s on‑air punditry as having one of the highest proportions of false or egregiously false ratings among cable networks: a PunditFact network scorecard put 58% of Fox‑attributed claims into Mostly False/False/Pants on Fire categories [1], and an earlier PolitiFact tally reported 31% False and 9% Pants on Fire for Fox claims [2]. Those network‑level numbers are the clearest, sourced indicators that watchdogs rate a large share of Fox pundit output as low‑accuracy [1][2].
2. Where the low ratings cluster: opinion shows and pundits
Independent auditors and Media Bias/Fact Check explicitly separate straight news reporting from opinion programming, saying beat reporting is generally accurate but that propagandistic opinion programming drags the outlet’s factual rating down; MBFC assigns Fox a “Low” factual rating largely because of promotion of conspiratorial or poorly sourced claims on opinion shows [3]. The sources do not provide a line‑by‑line list of specific programs with the single lowest ratings, but they point repeatedly to pundit and opinion segments as the locus of most failed checks [3][1].
3. Named personalities and legal fallout that amplify watchdog findings
Reporting released in connection with defamation litigation shows internal disputes about what was broadcast after the 2020 election, with documents naming high‑profile hosts such as Sean Hannity in discussions and underpinning lawsuits that allege false on‑air claims about voting technology firms; Smartmatic’s multibillion‑dollar suit centers on allegations that Fox shows broadcast false claims about the 2020 results, and newly released exhibits reference top hosts directly [4][5]. Those legal developments dovetail with fact‑check tallies pointing to repeated false or dangerously misleading claims by on‑air personalities [1][2].
4. What watchdogs did not (in these sources) provide: a ranked program list
Available sources do not list a definitive, ranked set of specific Fox News programs or hosts with the single lowest accuracy ratings across watchdogs. The fact‑check pieces aggregate claims across pundits and network programming to produce percentage breakdowns, and MBFC discusses opinion programming broadly; none of the provided documents supply a program‑by‑program accuracy ranking or single‑host “lowest” leaderboard [1][3].
5. Competing interpretations and the network’s standing
There is a competing view embedded in circulation and ratings reporting: despite watchdog critiques, Fox News remains a ratings powerhouse, with shows like The Five and other prime‑time programs drawing large audiences, which complicates the story about influence versus accuracy [6]. Fact‑checkers focus on truthfulness of claims; ratings outlets document reach. Both are factual but answer different questions: who watches Fox [6] versus how often its pundits have been rated false by third‑party fact‑checkers [1][2].
6. Why this matters: influence, litigation and public information
The combination of high audience reach [6], concentrated watchdog findings of high false‑rating percentages [1][2], and consequential litigation over alleged false election coverage [4][5] creates a feedback loop: widely viewed opinion programming that frequently fails fact checks can produce real‑world reputational and legal consequences for the network and for the subjects of its reporting [4][5]. Media‑bias assessments warn that the blending of opinion and news makes distinguishing factual reporting from commentary harder for audiences [3].
Limitations: these sources report aggregated fact‑check percentages and legal documents but do not publish a precise, cited ranking naming which single program or host has the “lowest” accuracy score. For specific program‑level or host‑level rankings, watchdogs’ original databases would have to be queried directly; that is not present in the current reporting [1][3].