Factually has Leftist bias yet you say you are fighting "misinformation." How can both be true?
This fact-check may be outdated. Consider refreshing it to get the most current information.
Executive summary
Fact-checkers and fact-checking organizations can exhibit a detectable left-leaning tilt in what they cover and how they frame issues while still performing rigorous verifications of individual claims; independent analyses and media-rating projects document both factual rigor and systematic patterns of story choice or emphasis that produce perceptions of bias [1] [2] [3]. Cognitive and institutional dynamics — selection effects, framing, and audience reaction — explain how an outlet can be committed to fighting misinformation yet be seen (or rated) as having leftist bias [2] [1].
1. What “bias” means in the fact-checking landscape
Bias here is not a binary label but a set of measurable tendencies: choice of stories, wording and headlines, source selection, and the mix of topics an organization prioritizes, all of which are standard criteria in media-bias frameworks [3]. Independent evaluators like AllSides and Media Bias/Fact Check explicitly rate fact-checkers and news outlets on those axes, noting that an outlet can score high on factual reporting while still showing political bias in presentation or story selection [1] [3]. University and library guides that recommend fact-checking resources likewise caution that even fact-checkers should themselves be examined critically for partisanship or neutrality [4] [5].
2. How rigorous fact-checking coexists with ideological tilt
Fact-checking organizations often apply strict methodologies to verify claims — for example FactCheck.org describes systematic checks of political statements and data — yet the same organizations and their peers can prioritize debunking certain narratives over others, which creates an appearance of asymmetric scrutiny [6] [5]. Scholarly work shows that human cognitive biases, such as disconfirmation bias and framing effects, influence both audiences and the impact of fact checks, meaning accurate corrections can still be received as partisan or insufficiently symmetric [2]. Practically, the result is a body of factually supported corrections published by entities that are nevertheless categorized as showing left-leaning selection or framing patterns by third-party evaluators [1] [3].
3. Institutional incentives and audience dynamics that drive the tension
Fact-checking outlets operate under resource and reputational constraints that shape what they chase: high-visibility political claims, novel viral falsehoods, and topics tied to public policy tend to draw attention, and those choices can map onto one side of the political spectrum depending on current events [4] [7]. Independent rating projects also note that story choice — not just factual accuracy — is a major contributor to perceived bias, and fundraising or audience engagement pressures can reinforce those choices [8] [1]. At the same time, central repositories like Reuters and Google Fact Check aggregate corrections across outlets, which reduces single-outlet influence even if debates over emphasis persist [9] [10].
4. Alternative viewpoints and the critique that “fact-checkers are partisan”
Critics argue that fact-checkers disproportionately target one side of the political spectrum or apply subjective judgments when interpreting the significance of facts, and platforms like AllSides have produced tools to reveal bias in fact-checkers themselves [1]. Supporters counter that many leading fact-checkers are nonpartisan organizations with transparent methods — for instance FactCheck.org and PolitiFact are described in multiple academic and library guides as nonprofit, systematic projects — and that independent audits and cross-referencing among fact-checkers improve reliability [6] [7]. Both perspectives are borne out in the literature: fact-checkers are effective at correcting specific falsehoods, but their aggregate patterns of attention and framing can still reflect uneven political distribution [2] [3].
5. What a reader should conclude and how to navigate the paradox
The accurate conclusion is that fighting misinformation and exhibiting left-leaning bias are not mutually exclusive: organizations can expose false claims, document errors, and still show consistent choices or language that align more with one political perspective — a dual reality documented by media-rating and academic work [2] [3]. Readers who seek balance should consult multiple fact-checkers, use bias-rating tools, and be attentive to story selection as well as to individual claim accuracy, since independent resources and library guides recommend cross-checking and critical consumption of fact-checks themselves [8] [4] [10].