Media bias.com
Executive summary
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) is a long-running site that catalogs more than 3,900 media outlets and publishes daily fact-check compilations and bias ratings; MBFC says it uses a structured methodology updated in 2025 to score outlets’ political alignment and factual reliability [1] [2]. Academic work has often used MBFC’s ratings and found strong correlation with independent measures like NewsGuard and some fact-check datasets, though the site’s methodology and classifications have also been criticized in scholarly discussion [3] [4].
1. What MBFC is and what it publishes — a busy media watchdog
Media Bias/Fact Check operates as a public-facing database and news site that lists thousands of media sources, posts daily “vetted” fact-check roundups and media-industry items, and offers bias and factualness evaluations of outlets [1] [5] [6]. The site runs frequent items such as “Daily Vetted Fact Checks,” “Media News Daily,” and weekly quizzes to promote media literacy [7] [8]. MBFC also curates fact-checks from other organizations and states it reviews those items before republication [5] [9].
2. How MBFC says it rates outlets — new 2025 methodology
MBFC publicly documents a revised methodology introduced in 2025 that it says uses a comprehensive, weighted scoring system to evaluate political, social and journalistic dimensions and to make ratings more systematic and transparent; the organization claims all sources reviewed after Jan. 1, 2025 are subject to that approach [2]. MBFC’s own “MBFC Ratings: By The Numbers” page explains the site’s goal of reducing subjective influence and addresses dataset effects such as a concentration of submitted right‑leaning sources [4].
3. Academic use and independent comparisons — correlations exist
Researchers have widely used MBFC in studies of misinformation and platform content; studies cited in background reporting find MBFC ratings correlate strongly with other independent measures, for example a reported correlation (r = 0.81) with NewsGuard and strong agreement with an independent 2017 fact‑check dataset in some evaluations [3]. MBFC’s ratings have been incorporated into tools such as the University of Michigan’s “Iffy Quotient” to track questionable sources on social platforms [3].
4. Criticisms and methodological limits raised in scholarship
Scholarly and critical commentary note limitations: MBFC’s methodology historically required a minimum number of headlines and stories to evaluate a source and has been criticized for aspects of how bias/factualness are operationalized; critics argue ratings can reflect presentation style (emotional language) as well as factual failings and that some methodological choices invite debate [3]. MBFC itself acknowledges dataset effects (submission bias toward certain political outlets) and explains how that influences aggregate numbers [4].
5. What MBFC claims to check and how it positions itself publicly
MBFC positions itself as “the most comprehensive media bias resource on the internet” and publishes frequent topical fact-check pieces — from health claims to political rumors — alongside its bias/credibility profiles. The site says it only republishes fact-checks from organizations that are IFCN signatories or otherwise vetted by MBFC [1] [5] [9].
6. Competing perspectives a reader should weigh
Supporters cite MBFC’s wide coverage, reproducible ratings and demonstrated correlations with other datasets as strengths for researchers and consumers [3] [4]. Critics emphasize methodological choices, the potential for bias in sample selection, and that “factualness” and “bias” are distinct axes that can be contested — points acknowledged in external studies and in MBFC’s documentation [3] [2].
7. Practical guidance for users — how to use MBFC responsibly
Use MBFC as a starting map of media ecosystems, not a definitive court of truth: check its bias/factualness labels alongside original reporting and other independent evaluators (NewsGuard, academic studies cited in literature) and read MBFC’s methodology page to understand scoring rules introduced in 2025 [2] [4]. Remember MBFC aggregates and republishes fact-checks it deems credible, but readers should verify individual fact-checks with their original sources [5] [9].
Limitations: available sources do not mention internal staffing, funding transparency beyond public pages, or detailed inter-rater reliability figures for the 2025 methodology beyond the broad comparisons noted above (not found in current reporting).