Media Bias/Fact Check

Tool Description : A media-monitoring and source-assessment website that evaluates news and information sources for political bias, factual reporting, credibility, sourcing, and transparency.

Media Bias/Fact Check

Quick Overview

URL

https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/

What it does

Assesses media sources for political bias, factual reporting and credibility and provides detailed source profiles.

How to use it

Search for a media outlet, journalist or source name/URL and review its profile, methodology, factual-reporting information and supporting evidence.

Cost

Partially Free. (Core research is free alongside paid ad-free membership.)

Account required

No for basic searches and source research.

A mix of Google Analytics, advertising-management, consent-management, Cloudflare security, and local preference cookies.

Ownership

American Independent media-rating organisation founded in 2015 with Dave Van Zandt identified as founder and primary editor.

Use in Reporting

Useful for assessing the background, sourcing practices and reported reliability of media outlets before using their material in an investigation.

What does Media Bias/Fact Check do?

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) maintains a large database of media sources and evaluates them using a published methodology covering areas such as political bias, factual reporting, sourcing, transparency, and one-sidedness/omission. Its current methodology requires reviewers to examine at least 10 headlines and 5 full stories for a source, with additional research where necessary.

It also provides a daily fact-check search that links to third-party fact-checking organisations such as PolitiFact, Snopes and FactCheck.org.

Note: MBFC itself states that its evaluations are subjective, evidence-based editorial assessments and that there is no universally accepted scientific standard for measuring media bias.

The lowdown: You can use the platform to understand how a publication has been assessed before relying on its reporting, identify potential sourcing or transparency issues, and find supporting fact-check material.

How to Use:

1. Search for the relevant media outlet, journalist or source using its name or website URL.

2. Review the source profile, including its methodology-based assessment, sourcing, ownership/funding information, factual-reporting history and any documented controversies or fact checks.

3. Use the information as contextual evidence when assessing a source, but verify important claims against the original reporting, primary documents and independent sources.

Cost

Free
Partially Free
Paid

Core research is free with the option for paid ad-free membership.

Data Processing

Account Required:

No for basic searches and source research.

Cookies:

The site uses a mixture of analytics, advertising, consent-management, security and functional cookies.

_ga_QB82EM7H04 is associated with Google Analytics 4 and measures visitor/session activity. advanced_ads_page_impressions records previous page impressions, while advanced_ads_pro_visitor_referrer records the referring URL for Advanced Ads advertising functionality.

FCCDCF is associated with Google Funding Choices and stores advertising/privacy consent information. cf_clearance is a Cloudflare security cookie used to record successful verification and help prevent repeated challenges. hidecta and hustle-hide-module-1 appear to store local interface/advertising-module preferences.

Use in Reporting

Media Bias/Fact Check can be used to:

Assess the published background of a media outlet before relying on its reporting.
Identify documented sourcing, transparency and editorial issues associated with a source.
Compare the assessment of different media sources covering the same event.
Investigate the factual-reporting history documented in a source profile.
Locate third-party fact checks associated with claims or media reporting.
Identify ownership, funding and editorial information where available.
Provide contextual information when explaining why an investigator sought additional corroboration.
Cross-check media-source assessments against other source-rating organisations and primary evidence.
Support media-literacy and misinformation research.

MBFC data has also been used in academic research. For example, research published in Online Information Review combined MBFC data with a large Wikipedia citation dataset to study political polarisation and factual reliability of news sources.

Capabilities

Limitations

Provides searchable profiles for thousands of media and information sources.

Ratings are assessments of sources, not individual articles in every case.

Examines bias, factual reporting, sourcing and transparency.

MBFC acknowledges that measuring political bias involves human judgment.

Provides detailed reports explaining the reasoning behind source assessments.

Its methodology is primarily tailored to the US political context, which can limit direct comparisons across countries.

Links to or draws on third-party fact-checking evidence.

A source rating does not prove that a particular article is accurate or inaccurate.

Can be used to compare source characteristics during an investigation.

Ratings can change as sources, evidence and MBFC methodology change.

Has been used as a dataset in academic misinformation and media research.

Researchers have raised methodological criticisms about using MBFC ratings as objective or authoritative measurements.

Summary

Media Bias/Fact Check is a source-assessment and media-research tool that provides structured evaluations of media outlets and other information sources. It’s particularly useful during verification in the OSINT workflow, where investigators can assess the background and reporting characteristics of a source before deciding how much corroboration is appropriate.

Important Note: Its own methodology describes the ratings as structured human assessments, while independent researchers have raised criticisms about their suitability for rigorous academic use.

Ownership

American Independent media-rating organisation founded in 2015 with Dave Van Zandt identified as founder and primary editor.

Ethical Considerations

Do not treat an MBFC rating as proof that an individual article is accurate or inaccurate.
Use the underlying evidence and methodology rather than relying only on a headline rating.
Be careful when describing politically sensitive ratings; distinguish MBFC's assessment from independently established facts.
Consider the geographical limitations of a methodology developed primarily around the US political environment.
Cross-check important assessments with other source-rating organisations and primary evidence.
Record the date of the MBFC assessment because profiles and ratings can change.