How do independent fact-checkers rate Fox News on accuracy and bias?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Independent fact‑checkers and media‑assessors commonly find that Fox News mixes factual reporting from beat reporters with opinion programming that has produced many false or misleading claims; Media Bias/Fact Check rates Fox News “Right (8.0)” bias and “Low” factual reporting (7.6) and labels its overall credibility “Low” [1]. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org maintain ongoing catalogs of fact‑checks of Fox News content, including numerous rulings of false or misleading items [2] [3].
1. A split identity: news desk vs. opinion shows
Independent outlets and researchers describe Fox News as a hybrid: straight reporting by beat reporters exists, but it is “buried” among opinion and commentary that aligns with the right and frequently departs from careful fact‑checking (Media Bias/Fact Check) [1]. Wikipedia’s summary of controversies similarly notes that Fox’s most popular programs “do not make any claims to be accurate or fact‑checked” and blur the line between news and commentary [4].
2. How third‑party evaluators quantify accuracy and bias
Media Bias/Fact Check assigns numeric and categorical judgments: a “Right (8.0)” bias score, a “Low” factual reporting score (7.6), and an overall credibility rating of “Low” for Fox News, citing promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, poor sourcing and numerous failed fact checks as reasons [1]. These kinds of assessments combine sample‑based content review with reputation and documented errors; MBFC explicitly distinguishes the outlet’s factual beat reporting from its editorial programming [1].
3. Continuous fact‑checking by dedicated sites
PolitiFact keeps a searchable, regularly updated list of fact‑checks that include Fox News as a speaker/category, and it separately filters for claims ruled false (PolitiFact lists and false‑ruling pages) [2] [5]. FactCheck.org also tags and analyzes Fox News content, documenting specific mistakes such as sharing doctored imagery and other viral errors [3]. Those databases show a pattern of repeated fact‑checks rather than a single isolated incident [2] [5] [3].
4. Examples that shaped perceptions
Independent fact‑checks and reporting have highlighted high‑profile episodes that influenced assessments: Reuters documented a manipulated screenshot falsely attributing a claim about USAID funding to Fox News (a screenshot had been altered) and labeled it altered in a fact‑check [6]. Wikipedia’s controversies page documents litigation and internal disputes around election coverage and false claims, and cites comparative studies that find a higher share of mostly‑false statements on Fox than on some competitors [4].
5. How fact‑checkers describe their own method and limits
Fact‑checking organizations are explicit about process and scope. FactCheck.org outlines editorial procedures and says it treats claims from all sides with consistent standards [7]. That transparency helps explain why PolitiFact and FactCheck.org produce extensive catalogs of rulings on Fox content: they apply their methods to public statements and broadcast claims [2] [3] [7].
6. Competing interpretations and what they mean for consumers
Sources differ in emphasis: Media Bias/Fact Check gives a strong credibility warning and catalogs systemic problems [1]. PolitiFact and FactCheck.org focus on checking individual claims and maintain searchable records rather than issuing a single global “grade” [2] [5] [3]. Wikipedia and media researchers add context about programming structure and litigation history that helps explain why debate over Fox’s accuracy is persistent [4].
7. Practical takeaway for readers
Independent fact‑checking resources document many false or misleading Fox News claims while also showing that beat reporting can be accurate; readers should consult claim‑level fact checks (PolitiFact, FactCheck.org) for specific stories and be aware that assessments like MBFC’s reflect pattern‑level judgments across programming, not every single article or segment [1] [2] [3].
Limitations: available sources do not provide a comprehensive, quantitative count of every Fox News true/false ruling over time and do not include Fox News’s internal corrections policies beyond isolated examples; for claim‑level verification consult the PolitiFact and FactCheck.org databases and MBFC’s full profile [1] [2] [5] [3].