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.
Is calmatters biased?
Executive summary
CalMatters is widely described by third‑party trackers as a generally factual, nonprofit newsroom that most observers place slightly left‑of‑center: Media Bias/Fact Check rates it “Left‑Center” with “High” factual reporting, and Ground News aggregates a “Lean Left” bias while giving it a “Very High” factuality rating [1] [2]. Other watchdogs and profiles note nonpartisan aims or assign low‑confidence or mixed ratings — AllSides lists CalMatters but says its bias rating has low or initial confidence [3] [4].
1. What the major ratings say — small left tilt, strong factuality
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) classifies CalMatters as Left‑Center biased, scoring its factual reporting as “High” and noting the outlet often uses emotionally loaded language while generally supporting claims with credible sources [1]. Ground News combined ratings from Ad Fontes and MBFC to give CalMatters a “Lean Left” bias but a “Very High” factuality score, indicating that bias assessments tend to separate tone/framing from accuracy [2].
2. CalMatters’ own positioning — nonprofit, public‑interest mission
CalMatters describes itself as a nonprofit, nonpartisan project focused on explaining California state government and policy; its About page stresses correction policies, collaboration with other newsrooms, and civic engagement as core practices [4]. That stated mission is consistent with its founding story and funding model described in profiles dating back to its launch in 2015 [5] [6].
3. Why observers detect a left‑of‑center leaning
Observers who call CalMatters left‑of‑center point to story selection, framing and emphasis — e.g., prioritizing issues such as environmental regulation, education and inequality — and occasional use of loaded language in headlines or editorials [1] [7]. InfluenceWatch explicitly characterizes CalMatters as “left‑of‑center” and notes its early emphasis on environmental topics and policy framing [7].
4. Counterpoints and uncertainty in ratings
Not all rating systems give a firm verdict. AllSides lists CalMatters but flags its bias rating as having “low or initial confidence,” signaling uncertainty about a stable label [3]. Local commentators and journalists who have worked with or within California media ecosystems (e.g., Nieman Lab, Politico profiles) frame CalMatters more as a civic‑coverage project than as an ideologically driven outlet [5] [6]. Wikipedia’s entry likewise frames it as a nonprofit covering state politics without endorsing a partisan label [8].
5. Practical meaning for readers — accuracy vs. angle
The tracked ratings show a consistent pattern: CalMatters scores high on factuality and sourcing while being judged by several trackers as having a modest left‑lean in framing or editorial choices [1] [2]. That means readers should treat its reporting as generally reliable for facts and data, while remaining aware that selection and language could reflect priorities that skew toward progressive policy concerns [1] [7].
6. Examples and transparency practices
CalMatters publishes corrections policies and invites reader feedback and error reports, noting major errors at the top and minor corrections at story bottoms — a transparency practice typically associated with credible outlets [4]. Profiles of its collaborative model and funding history (Knight and Irvine Foundation support among others) help explain why it operates like other nonprofit public‑interest newsrooms [5] [6].
7. How to evaluate bias in practice — a short checklist
When reading CalMatters (or any outlet), compare reporting against primary documents and multiple outlets, watch for loaded headlines versus neutral ledes, and separate straight news from opinion or commentary pieces [1] [9]. Where a story expresses a viewpoint — for instance, commentary on systemic bias in criminal justice — check whether it’s labeled as opinion and whether it cites studies or sources, as CalMatters has published both explanatory reporting and labeled commentaries [9] [4].
8. Bottom line and limitations of available reporting
Available sources consistently find CalMatters to be factually reliable while assigning a modest left‑of‑center tilt based on framing and issue emphasis [1] [2]. However, some evaluators register low confidence or emphasize CalMatters’ civic, nonprofit mission rather than a simple partisan label, so the characterization depends on whether you weigh sourcing/accuracy or topic/framing more heavily [3] [5]. Available sources do not mention internal editorial deliberations that would definitively prove or disprove systematic political bias beyond these external assessments (not found in current reporting).