Is factually politically biased
Executive summary
Fact-checking and media-bias rating sites are not monolithic: many explicitly separate “factual reporting” from “political bias,” and independent assessments show strong agreement across several tools, but critiques and institutional notes warn some projects began with partisan assumptions and that presentation can still carry slant [1] [2]. Academic and library guides therefore recommend using multiple, methodologically transparent resources and lateral reading rather than trusting any single label [3] [4].
1. How the major tools say they measure bias and accuracy
Platforms used widely in research—Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), Ad Fontes, AllSides, NewsGuard and others—publish distinct methodologies that separate a “bias” axis from a “factualness” or reliability axis, and emphasize reproducible criteria like headline selection, sourcing and documented fact-check failures when scoring outlets [1] [5] [6] [7]. Academic guides and library collections list these tools as complementary resources and instruct readers to compare multiple ratings because a single metric will not capture the full editorial behavior of a news outlet [3] [4] [8].
2. Evidence that these metrics are useful and converge
Researchers have found that MBFC’s factualness ratings correlate strongly with other industry datasets such as NewsGuard and independent fact-check collections, and a 2022 study reported high correlation (r = 0.81) between MBFC scores and NewsGuard for URL sharing studies, suggesting substantial convergence across different measurement systems [1]. Universities and literacy initiatives point to these convergences as a reason to use bias charts and multiple databases as starting points for lateral reading rather than definitive judgments [9] [7].
3. Critiques: where political bias seeps into fact-checking
Industry and academic critics note that fact-checking projects can carry implicit political origins or framing—Poynter reports that PolitiFact’s founder confessed to an early belief that one party lied more and that this history influences perceptions of the project’s neutrality—demonstrating that fact-checking initiatives can be birthed with partisan assumptions that shape methods and public trust [2]. Likewise, MBFC’s own methodology allows that a source can have “high factual reporting” yet display political bias through emotional language or selection of topics, which underscores how presentation choices, not just factual errors, produce perceived slant [1].
4. Practical limits and the librarian consensus
Library guides from institutions such as Pace, UMass Amherst, University of Oregon and others caution readers that absence of coverage or differing emphases between outlets can reflect editorial judgment, resource constraints or systemic bias, and therefore recommend cross-checking claims with multiple fact-checkers and performing lateral reading to assess funding, corrections practices and sourcing—steps those guides present as necessary because no single tool captures every dimension of bias or reliability [3] [4] [7] [8]. These guides also note that some tools are crowd-sourced or volunteer-assisted, which can affect transparency and consistency in assessments [10].
5. Bottom line: are fact-checkers politically biased?
The evidence in reporting and scholarly usage shows that many fact-checking and media-bias services produce robust, reproducible ratings that agree with one another and are useful for readers, but they are neither free of political framing nor immune to presentation-based bias; some projects have explicit critiques about partisan origins or admitted editorial leanings and methodological limits [1] [2]. Given those mixed signals, the responsible conclusion—supported by library and research sources—is that fact-checkers are tools that reduce misinformation when used together and with critical lateral reading, not infallible neutral arbiters; claims about universal political bias in “all” fact-checking therefore overreach the available reporting [3] [9].