Which US news outlets are classified as conservative versus far-right, and who determines that categorization?
Executive summary
U.S. news outlets commonly labeled “conservative” include mainstream cable and print organizations such as Fox News and the Wall Street Journal’s opinion pages, while outlets classified as “far‑right” or alternative right include Breitbart, Newsmax, the Epoch Times and similar sites; these labels are applied by a mix of media‑rating organizations, academic researchers and public‑opinion surveys, each using different methods that produce overlapping but not identical lists [1] [2] [3] [4]. The determinations come from organizations such as AllSides (editorial panels and crowd input), Pew Research (audience ideology and trust surveys), YouGov (public perception/net‑ideology), academic network analyses and commercial ranking services — meaning the classification depends on methodology and the selectors’ incentives [5] [6] [1] [7] [4].
1. How “conservative” versus “far‑right” is being used — two different categories in practice
Reporting and scholarship generally treat “conservative” as a broad category that includes mainstream outlets with right‑leaning audiences or editorial slants (Fox News is the most prominent example), while “far‑right” or “right‑wing alternative” is reserved for outlets that combine partisan opinion, activist missions, or exclusionary rhetoric and that occupy a more isolated media ecosystem — scholars name Breitbart, WorldNetDaily, Newsmax, and Epoch Times as examples of this latter cluster [2] [1] [4] [8].
2. Who does the labeling: public‑opinion surveys and audience‑based placement
Large survey projects place outlets on an ideological continuum by measuring the political makeup and trust levels of their audiences; Pew Research maps outlets by where their regular audiences sit ideologically and shows Fox News as strongly conservative in audience composition, while Pew’s later audience work identifies Breitbart, Newsmax and the Tucker Carlson Network as having the most conservative audiences of the outlets asked about [1] [9]. YouGov similarly derives a net‑ideology from respondents’ perceptions and finds many more outlets perceived as liberal than conservative, underscoring that public labeling is shaped by perception as well as audience data [7].
3. Who does the labeling: rating projects and editorial review (AllSides, university guides)
AllSides produces a widely shared Media Bias Chart using panels of left, center and right reviewers plus editorial discretion to rate outlets as Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right, Right or Mixed, and it explicitly notes that inclusion on the chart and placement are editorial decisions informed by multiple factors [5] [6]. Academic and library guides compile similar lists for teaching and research, often citing combinations of audience surveys and third‑party ratings to say which sources “lean right” [10] [11].
4. Who does the labeling: academic research and network analysis
Scholars at institutions such as Harvard’s Berkman Klein Center have used network analysis to show how right‑wing media can form isolated, reinforcement networks — work that distinguishes mainstream conservative outlets from more segregated, partisan or propagandistic ecosystems and that helps researchers justify separate categories like “far‑right” or “alternative media” [4]. These academic methods emphasize citation patterns, social‑media amplification and editorial mission, not just audience self‑reports.
5. Why lists disagree and what each selector’s incentives are
Differences in classification stem from methodology: audience‑composition measures (Pew) emphasize who consumes and trusts a source, perception surveys (YouGov) report public labeling, editorial panels (AllSides) combine reviewer judgments and public input, commercial rankings (Statista) rank traffic, and academics analyze networks and content patterns — each approach privileges different signals and reflects distinct institutional aims [1] [7] [5] [3] [4]. That means “conservative” for one project may be “far‑right” in another, and lists can reflect implicit agendas — for example, public‑opinion firms echo popular perception while advocacy‑oriented sites emphasize balance and pluralism in their taxonomy [6] [7].