Keep Factually independent
Whether you agree or disagree with our analysis, these conversations matter for democracy. We don't take money from political groups - even a $5 donation helps us keep it that way.
And why are your trending fact checks anti-conservative?
Executive summary
You’re not alone in noticing that many widely shared fact-checks target conservative claims; academic research finds conservatives share more low‑quality information on social media, which can cause neutral enforcement to fall disproportionately on conservative content [1]. Media watchdogs and bias charts also show that many conservative outlets range from “right” to “extreme right” bias or low credibility, which helps explain why fact‑checks often review material from those outlets [2] [3] [4].
1. Why fact checks may seem “anti‑conservative”: enforcement can mirror who spreads errors
A Nature study finds conservatives, on average, share more low‑quality news on social platforms; the authors argue that even politically neutral misinformation policies can produce asymmetric outcomes because of that differential sharing, so more fact‑checks hitting conservative claims can be a consequence of unequal error rates rather than deliberate targeting [1].
2. The media ecosystem: many conservative outlets are flagged for bias or low credibility
Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) profiles cited in the search results rate several conservative outlets as right‑leaning or worse — for example, Conservative Brief is rated “Right” and Project 2025 is described as “far right‑biased,” while some sites like Conservative Daily Post are labeled “Questionable” or “Extreme Right” with low credibility — meaning independent fact‑checkers may routinely examine claims originating there [2] [4] [3].
3. Fact‑checkers’ mission and perceived neutrality vary across organizations
Mainstream fact‑check teams (AP Fact Check, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, CNN, etc.) present themselves as combating misinformation and holding public claims to evidence-based standards; AllSides and Poynter note that fact‑checking involves interpretation and that perceptions of bias are common, because choosing which claims to check and how to frame them involves editorial judgment [5] [6] [7] [8] [9] [10].
4. Critics from the right say fact‑checkers are careless or partisan
Some conservative critics accuse PolitiFact and other organizations of selective scrutiny or flawed interpretations that disproportionately harm conservative figures; one source’s snippets allege repeated “fact check fails” and perceived partisanship at PolitiFact [11]. Available sources do not mention whether every specific trending fact‑check you’ve seen was produced with partisan intent.
5. Why bias charts and watchdog ratings matter — and their limits
AllSides’ Fact Check Bias Chart and MBFC’s database try to quantify tendencies across fact‑checkers and outlets; they show systematic differences in how organizations and outlets lean, which helps readers contextualize why fact‑checks might focus on some sources more than others [9] [12]. But Poynter warns that bias charts simplify complex realities and that accuracy and accountability should be the primary standards for judging journalism [10].
6. Two plausible interpretations — and how to test them
Interpretation A: Fact‑checkers are applying shared professional standards and therefore disproportionately flag more conservative claims because conservative networks circulate more low‑quality content — supported by research showing asymmetric sharing [1]. Interpretation B: Fact‑checkers or platforms are biased in selection or language, which critics allege in specific cases [11] [10]. To evaluate which applies in a given instance, examine: the original claims’ provenance (what outlet or account first published it), the factual basis used by the fact‑checkers, and whether peer fact‑checkers reached similar conclusions [2] [5] [6].
7. Practical steps for readers who worry about bias
Diversify your sources — include fact‑checks from multiple organizations (AP, PolitiFact, FactCheck.org, independent outlets) and cross‑check MBFC or AllSides bias ratings to see how sources are classified [5] [6] [7] [9]. When you see a trending fact‑check, check whether the original claim came from an outlet MBFC rates as heavily biased or low‑credibility; that context often explains why it attracted scrutiny [2] [4] [3].
Limitations: Available sources do not provide a dataset of “trending fact‑checks” broken down by political leaning, so this analysis relies on a representative study about asymmetric misinformation sharing (Nature) and on media‑bias profiles and commentary about fact‑checking practices [1] [2] [4] [3] [10]. If you want, I can look for specific trending fact‑checks you’ve seen and trace their origins and how different fact‑checkers treated them.