What standards do media‑rating organizations use to evaluate partisan outlets like MeidasTouch, and how did they score it?
Executive summary
Media‑rating organizations evaluate partisan outlets by measuring directional bias, factual reliability and transparency using defined scales and panels of analysts; those metrics place MeidasTouch solidly on the left with mixed factuality and medium credibility in multiple aggregators [1] [2] [3] [4]. Differences in methodology—numeric bias ranges, reliability axes, and aggregation rules—explain why Ad Fontes, Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) and Ground News reach similar directional judgments but vary in labeling and emphasis [1] [2] [3] [4].
1. How mainstream media‑rating bodies define “bias” and “reliability”
Ad Fontes Media explains bias on a continuous horizontal scale that runs from left to right and rates reliability on a vertical axis that separates original factual reporting from analysis, opinion and propaganda; panels of human analysts review representative samples to place a source on the Media Bias Chart® [1] [2]. Media Bias/Fact Check combines qualitative signals—language use (e.g., “loaded words”), omissions, funding transparency and political alignment—into a discrete bias rating and a separate factual‑reporting score, producing labels like “LEFT” and “MIXED” to denote direction and accuracy [3]. Aggregators such as Ground News then synthesize multiple services’ scores (notably Ad Fontes and MBFC) to produce composite labels like “Far Left” plus a factuality grade [4].
2. The specific metrics and scales these organizations use
Ad Fontes publishes a numeric bias range of −42 to +42 for content samples and situates outlet reliability from original reporting to inaccurate/fabricated information; its methodology relies on panels to score representative article and show samples rather than every piece of content [1] [2]. MBFC applies qualitative criteria—including use of emotionally loaded language, tendency to omit damaging information, and funding transparency—to assign a bias magnitude (MBFC lists MeidasTouch at LEFT −7.7) and a factual reporting score (MBFC gives MeidasTouch a MIXED factuality score of 5.0 and a medium credibility rating) [3]. Ground News aggregates those third‑party ratings to assign its own bias/factuality composite, here labeling MeidasTouch “Far Left” with “Mixed” factuality based on the underlying scores [4].
3. How MeidasTouch scores under those systems
Under MBFC’s published evaluation, MeidasTouch is rated Left (−7.7) and Mixed for factual reporting with medium credibility—MBFC cites negative portrayal of Trump/Republicans, promotion of Democratic candidates, use of loaded wording and lack of funding transparency as drivers of that assessment [3]. Ad Fontes lists MeidasTouch on its Media Bias Chart based on analyst ratings of representative content; while the available snippets describe the charting method and scoring range, they do not provide a single aggregated numeric score for the outlet in the provided reporting [1] [2]. Ground News, which aggregates Ad Fontes and MBFC, assigns MeidasTouch a “Far Left” bias label and a “Mixed” factuality rating, consistent with the underlying services’ directional and reliability judgments [4]. AllSides’ AI bias checker has been used to flag bias in MeidasTouch coverage, though the excerpts do not show a standalone AllSides rating number for the outlet in these sources [5].
4. Context, agendas and limits of the ratings
Evaluators note MeidasTouch was founded as an explicitly political project with founders’ stated goals—“protecting American democracy” and “defeating Trumpism”—and its origin as a pandemic‑era sibling team and Super PAC successor shapes how raters interpret intent, tone and funding opacity [1] [3] [6]. Critics and some journalists argue MeidasTouch’s viral video strategy and fundraising model are partisan by design and can blur news and advocacy—an observation echoed in MBFC’s and independent reviews and raised by Rolling Stone and others about effectiveness versus persuasion, though the provided snippets do not give full details of every critique [3] [6]. Ratings are inherently interpretive: Ad Fontes emphasizes representative sampling and analyst panels, MBFC flags language and transparency concerns, and Ground News reports aggregated labels—readers should understand these are methodologically different judgments, not absolute truth scores [1] [2] [4].
5. Bottom line for consumers and researchers
Across established media‑rating systems MeidasTouch is consistently identified as left‑leaning with mixed factual reliability and questions about transparency and one‑sided framing—MBFC gives a LEFT −7.7 bias and MIXED factuality/medium credibility, Ad Fontes places it leftward on its chart via analyst sampling, and Ground News aggregates those signals into “Far Left” plus “Mixed” factuality [3] [1] [2] [4]. Where available reporting is silent, this account does not invent additional numeric scores; it instead highlights how methodological differences—panel sampling versus qualitative flags versus aggregation—drive the precise label assigned to a partisan outlet like MeidasTouch [1] [3] [4].