Fact check: Is Newsmax, Fox News and OAN more factual then legacy media?

1. Why one commonly cited metric paints a mixed picture

The PunditFact network scorecards referenced show Fox News hosts having 58% of their claims rated Mostly False, False or Pants on Fire, compared with CNN at 22% and MSNBC at 45%, suggesting substantial variation in host-level accuracy across networks as of the cited dataset ^[1]. This metric targets statements made by pundits and hosts rather than the entire outlet output, so it highlights differences in on-air commentary but does not capture newsroom corrections, reporting standards, or the volume of factual reporting. The date on that dataset is 2014-09-16, making it a useful historical indicator but insufficient to settle current comparative accuracy questions ^[1].

2. Critical limits: who was included and who was excluded

The PunditFact methodology explicitly excludes statements from elected officials, candidates, and party officials, and focuses on pundits and hosts, which narrows the universe of claims assessed and potentially skews comparisons of “media factuality” more broadly ^[1]. Because the scorecards do not evaluate every segment of network output — such as straight news reporting, investigative pieces, or online content — the headline percentages should be treated as measurements of pundit commentary rather than comprehensive network reliability scores. This methodological boundary is central to interpreting the numbers responsibly ^[1].

3. Missing entries: Newsmax and OAN are absent from the comparison

The materials provided do not include scorecards or systematic fact-checks for Newsmax or One America News (OAN), leaving a critical gap when the question asks whether they are “more factual” than legacy media ^[2]. Without comparable, systematic ratings for Newsmax and OAN from the same fact-checking framework, any claim that they are more factual is unsupported by the supplied evidence. The absence of data is as important as the presence of data: it prevents apples-to-apples comparisons and opens the possibility of cherry-picking favorable anecdotes instead of relying on consistent metrics ^[2].

4. The age of the evidence weakens definitive conclusions

The key comparative numbers come from a 2014 dataset ^[1], and media ecosystems, editorial practices, and personnel have changed since then. Using a decade-old snapshot to rank contemporary outlets risks mischaracterizing current realities, because networks have restructured shows, changed hosts, and evolved editorial policies. The provided analyses do not include newer scorecards or longitudinal trends, so any assertion about present-day relative factuality cannot be reliably drawn from the supplied material alone ^[1].

5. What additional data would be required to answer the user’s question

A robust answer would require consistent, up-to-date fact-checking applied across the same categories (hosts, anchors, reporters, and editorial content) for each outlet, ideally from multiple independent organizations and with transparent methodologies. The supplied documents demonstrate the importance of methodological clarity — for example, whether the focus is pundit commentary or straight reporting — and show that comparability is essential. Because Newsmax and OAN are not in the provided dataset, the user’s question remains unanswered by the current materials ^{[1] [2]}.

6. How to interpret claims and possible agendas in the absence of comprehensive data

When outlets or partisans claim superior factuality without shared metrics, they often rely on selective examples or narratives that serve reputational or political goals. The supplied analyses remind readers that single-source scorecards and dated snapshots can be used rhetorically, and that absent cross-outlet, contemporaneous comparisons, such claims may reflect advocacy rather than neutral assessment ^{[1] [2]}. Evaluators should demand transparent methods, recent data, and multi-source corroboration before accepting blanket accuracy claims.

7. Bottom line and next steps for a rigorous comparison

Based solely on the provided material, one can state that Fox News hosts had higher rates of false or mostly false claims in the 2014 PunditFact scorecards than CNN or MSNBC, but there is no evidence in the supplied analyses that Newsmax or OAN are more factual than legacy media ^{[1] [2]}. To resolve the question conclusively, commission or consult recent, methodologically consistent fact-checking that includes Newsmax and OAN alongside legacy outlets, and prioritize multi-year trend analyses from multiple fact-checking organizations to mitigate single-source bias and dated snapshots ^{[1] [2]}.