Factually is a liberal skewed "fact checking" site
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
The question asks whether "Factually" is a liberal‑skewed fact‑checking site; available reporting in the packet does not evaluate a site named Factually, so a definitive judgment about that specific outlet cannot be made from these sources alone [1]. What can be said from the provided material is that mainstream fact‑checking organizations are routinely assessed for political slant, that bias ratings and methodological transparency matter, and that some respected tools flag modest liberal lean in certain fact‑checkers while others rate many fact‑checkers as centrist or “least biased” [2] [3] [4].
1. What the claim really asks and what the sources cover
The user’s phrasing — "is a liberal skewed 'fact checking' site" — is a claim about political bias in a named outlet; none of the supplied sources contain an evaluation or mention of an outlet called Factually, so the available material cannot confirm or deny that label for that specific site [1]. Instead, the packet contains meta‑analyses and bias‑rating tools (AllSides, Media Bias/Fact Check, MakeUseOf, News Literacy Initiative) that describe how fact‑checkers and news outlets are ranked and how bias is identified [2] [5] [4] [6].
2. How third‑party rating systems assign "liberal" or "centrist" labels
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) and AllSides apply explicit methodologies to gauge media bias and factual accuracy by reviewing language, sourcing, and selection of stories; MBFC publishes bias and factual‑reporting scores for thousands of outlets and says it follows a documented methodology for those determinations [5] [6]. AllSides produces a bias meter that places outlets on a left‑to‑right scale and explicitly rates some fact‑checking projects, reporting, for example, a bias metric for FactCheck.org [3] [2]. These systems make clear that bias ratings are aggregate judgments about patterns in coverage, not single definitive proofs.
3. Evidence that fact‑checking sites can show a liberal tilt — and why that matters
Multiple guides and reviews note that some popular fact‑checkers and fact‑checking sections tend to focus more on one political side — often the right — which reviewers interpret as a left‑leaning selection bias; MakeUseOf and AllSides argue that story selection and occasional loaded wording produce perceptions of a left‑center tilt in some fact‑checking outlets [4] [2]. The News Literacy Initiative warns that many outlets described as having "slight to moderate liberal bias" still publish factual information but may use emotionally loaded language or prioritise certain targets, which can create a persistent impression of ideological skew [6].
4. Evidence that many fact‑checkers are judged centrist or highly factual
At the same time, major fact‑checking organizations are routinely described as nonpartisan or centrist by the same evaluators: MBFC and library guides note that outlets like the Associated Press, FactCheck.org, and other IFCN signatories are rated high on factual reporting and often placed near the center or "least biased" category [1] [7]. AllSides shows nuance by assigning bias scores with confidence levels rather than binary labels, underscoring that many fact‑checkers sit close to center even if perceived as leaning one way [3] [2].
5. What this means for assessing any single site called "Factually"
Because the provided documents explain how bias ratings are created but do not assess a site named Factually, the responsible journalistic conclusion is that the claim cannot be verified with these sources alone; to evaluate that specific outlet would require consulting MBFC, AllSides, IFCN records, the outlet’s funding and sourcing transparency, and a sample of its fact‑checks to look for systematic selection or loaded language — precisely the methods described in the sources [5] [6] [2]. Those same sources show that fact‑checking operations vary: some are judged centrist and high in factual accuracy, others are flagged for slight to moderate liberal tilt mainly because of story selection or tone [1] [4] [6].
Conclusion
The supplied reporting establishes how to judge bias in fact‑checking outlets and documents that some fact‑checkers are seen as left‑of‑center while others score as centrist and highly factual, but it contains no direct evaluation of a site named Factually, so the specific claim cannot be settled from these materials alone [2] [1] [5]. The credible next step is a lateral check: look up Factually on MBFC and AllSides, inspect IFCN signatory lists, review funding disclosures and a representative sample of its checks for target selection and sourcing transparency, using the methodologies described in the cited sources [5] [6].