How often does MSN publish fact-checked false stories?

1. MSN’s credibility profile: rated “high” but left‑center

Independent reviewers such as Media Bias/Fact Check assign MSN a high credibility rating for factual reporting while noting a left‑center bias in its sourcing and editorial slant, reflecting that MSN largely aggregates material from mainstream outlets rather than originating most content ^[1]; Ad Fontes Media similarly evaluates MSN using panels to score bias and reliability rather than claiming repeated fabrication across its output ^[2].

2. The aggregator model reduces some error types — and creates others

Because MSN functions chiefly as a portal and aggregator, much of its content is republished or surfaced from other news organizations, which explains MBFC’s approach of judging MSN by its sources rather than by being judged as an original reporter ^[1]; that structure means outright invented reporting is rarer than mis‑selection, framing or republishing of erroneous pieces from third parties, but it also concentrates risk when the aggregation system—human or algorithmic—amplifies a bad item ^{[1] [2]}.

3. Automation and editorial choices produced high‑profile false or grotesque items

Reporting from The Verge documented examples where MSN’s AI‑driven curation or generation highlighted blatantly false or insensitive items—a fabricated claim that President Biden “dozed off” during a moment of silence and other AI‑generated errors in headlines and obituaries—showing automation can surface clear factual errors and tone‑deaf language that human editors might have caught ^[3].

4. User reviews and watchdogs signal perception problems but not a quantified error rate

Consumer review sites like Sitejabber and Trustpilot contain dozens of complaints accusing MSN of lacking fact‑checking and quality control, with reviewers describing perceived political bias and inaccuracies; these are useful indicators of public distrust yet are anecdotal and politicized, so they cannot be translated into an objective frequency of fact‑checked false stories ^{[4] [5]}. Media Bias/Fact Check’s practice of aggregating and vetting fact checks also shows there’s scrutiny of fact‑checkers and newsrooms alike, but MBFC’s daily fact‑check roundup is about checking others, not producing a frequency count of MSN errors ^[7].

5. What the available evidence does — and does not — allow one to conclude

The assembled sources establish that MSN is not routinely flagged by major media‑rating organizations as a prolific publisher of fabricated stories and that its factual reputation is rated “high” by MBFC while Ad Fontes places it within a monitored bias/reliability spectrum ^{[1] [2]}; at the same time, documented AI failures and negative user reports prove the site has published false or misleading items on occasion, particularly where algorithmic curation or weak editorial oversight intervened ^{[3] [4] [5]}. None of the sources, however, provide a numerical rate, percentage or systematic audit of “fact‑checked false stories” attributable to MSN itself, so any claim about “how often” in quantitative terms would go beyond what the reporting supports ^{[1] [2] [3]}.

6. Bottom line and alternative interpretations

Reasonable, evidence‑based reading: MSN is better characterized as a generally credible aggregator with intermittent, sometimes high‑visibility errors tied to automation and editorial choices rather than a consistent publisher of verifiably false, fact‑checked stories; critics and consumer complaints present an alternate view that the portal lacks adequate verification, but those are not independently quantified by the sources provided, leaving an unavoidable gap between reputational ratings and a numeric frequency of false fact checks ^{[1] [2] [3] [4] [5]}.