Why is factually website based on liberal subjectiveness?
Executive summary
Factually — the site under scrutiny — is not definitively labeled a liberal outlet by the curated fact-checking resources in the provided reporting; Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) rates Factually as “Least Biased” with a “Mostly Factual” credibility assessment, explicitly noting balanced sourcing and neutral presentation while warning about AI-related errors [1]. Yet broader scholarship on fact-checkers and bias shows that perceptions of a liberal tilt often arise from methodology, story selection, and the difference between factual accuracy and perceived editorial framing [2] [3].
1. How independent ratings actually characterize Factually
Independent media-rating research cited in these sources places Factually toward the center: MBFC’s published evaluation calls Factually “Least Biased” and “Mostly Factual,” praising balanced sourcing and neutral presentation while flagging reliance on AI as a potential error source [1]. This is an explicit, evidence-based counterweight to the blanket claim that Factually is “based on liberal subjectiveness,” because a major cataloguer of media bias judged the site as low-bias and relatively factual [1].
2. Why some readers still perceive a liberal slant
Perception of liberal subjectiveness in fact-checkers commonly stems from choices about which claims to fact-check and how to contextualize them; AllSides explains that fact-checkers can be accurate yet still exhibit bias through story selection or the emphasis they place on certain facts, and that bias can appear when fact-checkers focus more on claims from one political side [3]. The News Literacy Initiative similarly notes that credibility scores like MBFC’s are not without critics and that publications earn mixed ratings when editors acknowledge ideological leanings or when failed fact-checks accumulate over time — mechanisms that feed perceptions of a partisan tilt [2].
3. Methodology and transparency matter more than ideology
Several of the sources emphasize that rigorous methodology and transparent sourcing — not presumptive ideological alignment — are the strongest predictors of trustworthiness: MBFC describes a strict methodology and a volunteer-assisted editorial process for its own ratings [4], and library guides recommend lateral reading, checking sourcing, and comparing coverage across outlets to understand frames and story selection rather than assuming partisan motive [5] [6]. MBFC’s explicit note that Factually uses balanced sourcing and neutral presentation is therefore central to assessing whether subjectiveness is inherent or perceived [1].
4. Structural reasons a fact-checking site can be labeled liberal
Structural features that make a fact-checker appear “liberal” include audience composition, issue selection, and proportionality of corrections; AllSides warns that headline choices and which claims get amplified can create detectable slants, even when factual accuracy is high [3]. Independent ratings databases and libraries advise readers to expect that even “least biased” outlets operate within frames shaped by editorial priorities and the contemporary news cycle, which can align unequally with one side of the political spectrum [5] [6].
5. Limitations in available reporting and unresolved questions
The supplied reporting does not contain quantitative content analysis comparing Factually’s output to left- and right-leaning baselines over time, nor does it provide audience demographics or internal editorial memos that would conclusively explain perceived subjectiveness; therefore claims that Factually is “based on liberal subjectiveness” cannot be fully validated or refuted from these sources alone [2] [1]. What can be stated with confidence from the available material is that authoritative cataloguers like MBFC judged Factually as low-bias and mostly factual, while scholars and platforms warn that bias perception often reflects methodological and selection effects rather than straightforward partisan intent [1] [3].
Conclusion
Concluding with the evidence at hand: labeling Factually as fundamentally “based on liberal subjectiveness” is inconsistent with MBFC’s explicit evaluation that rates it least biased and mostly factual and raises caution primarily about AI-related risks [1]; however, broader media-literacy research shows why reasonable observers might nonetheless perceive a liberal tilt — choices about which claims to check, headline framing, and the unequal distribution of fact-checks across political actors can create the impression of subjectivity even when factual rigor is present [3] [2]. The question therefore reduces to whether one prioritizes independent bias ratings and methodological transparency (which favor Factually’s neutrality in these sources) or interprets editorial patterns and selection effects as evidence of ideological subjectiveness (which other analyses warn is a common perceptual outcome) [4] [5].