Rankings of News Sources for Factuality and Bias

Rankings of News Sources for Factuality and Bias

With the rise of social media and the accusations of “fake news”, finding a reliable, accurate news source is difficult. We’ve seen a lot of articles and sites pop-up with some pretty good approaches to sifting through and ranking/labeling television and print news media.

Of course, as usual, people will disagree if they find their favorite news source listed poorly. After all, God forbid we break from our confirmation bias, think critically, and reassess the validity of what we listen to or read.

That being said, I decided to make a list of my own, based off the various other sites. Using information from Ad Fontes Media’s famous “Chart”, and combining it with various fact-checking sites (like Media Bias/Fact Check), I ranked (and graded) various newspapers, television channels, etc.


A+: These sources have the least amount of bias and/or the highest factuality. They provide reliable and valid information, at least in their field of coverage.

  • Associated Press
  • C-SPAN
  • The Economist
  • Financial Times
  • Foreign Policy Magazine
  • Reuters
  • The Hill


A: These sources have good to high factuality, with minimal bias toward one side or the other. They can be counted as reliable and valid overall.

  • BBC
  • Bloomberg News
  • Christian Science Monitor
  • MarketWatch
  • NPR
  • PBS NewsHour


download (1)

A-: Although factual and reliable, many of these have some bias in their reporting. Use them, but checking multiple sources would help counter any slant.

  • ABC News
  • The Atlantic
  • Axios
  • CBS News
  • New York Times
  • News and Guts
  • Ozy Media
  • Propublica
  • The Skimm
  • USA Today


B+: These sources are still factual, but they have a notable slant to their reporting. Op-eds in particular are significantly biased.

  • The American Conservative
  • Fortune Magazine
  • The Guardian
  • Los Angeles Times
  • Mic
  • NBC News
  • Washington Post


B: Good factuality but their bias is notable in both reporting and op-eds. Double-check multiple sources on any particular story to ensure all perspectives.

  • Current Affairs Magazine
  • The Fiscal Times
  • Forbes
  • The Intercept
  • Mother Jones
  • The Nation
  • Time Magazine
  • Vice Media
  • Washington Monthly
  • Weekly Standard


B-: Bias increases to significant levels, even if the facts remain high. Not only should you research multiple perspectives on the story, but double-check sources or quotes used.

  • Daily Beast
  • Democracy Now
  • Forward Progressives
  • Independent Journal Review
  • Jacobin
  • New Republic
  • New Yorker
  • Reason
  • Slate
  • Wall Street Journal


C+: At this point, these sources have mixed factuality and/or significant bias toward one side or the other. Like Wikipedia, they might be a good jump-off point, but definitely research the story elsewhere.

  • CNN
  • Huffington Post
  • Second Nexus
  • New York Post
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Vox
  • Washington Times


C: Unreliability and slant increases and validity decreases. Often these have op-eds that are notably biased and not always founded in sound argument or data.

  • BuzzFeed
  • The Federalist
  • National Review
  • Vanity Fair


D+: At this point, these sources are practically unusable and barely considered journalism. They use charged language, have major bias, questionable factuality, and mostly focus on opinion over reporting.

  • The Daily Caller
  • FOX News
  • FStv
  • PJ Media
  • The Young Turks


D: The level of slant is so high here, that even simple reporting is tainted by the pundits and writers. Nobody should be using these as valid sources of information.

  • The Daily Wire
  • Think Progress
  • Washington Examiner


D-: The worst of the mixed factuality, these are almost entirely opinion sites meant to push their particular agendas. Any legitimate facts are barely unrecognizable under the rhetoric and slant.

  • AlterNet
  • The Blaze
  • Daily Kos
  • Daily Signal
  • One America News Network
  • Palmer Report
  • Red State
  • Shareblue
  • Twitchy
  • Truth Out
  • Washington Free Beacon
  • Wonkette


F: A complete failure of “journalism”, these sites are propaganda or conspiracy. They have little to no factuality, complete and utter bias, and nobody should believe a single thing they say.

  • Bipartisan Report
  • Breitbart
  • Conservative Tribune
  • Daily Mail
  • Drudge Report
  • The Gateway Pundit
  • InfoWars
  • National Enquirer
  • Occupy Democrats
  • Patribotics Blog
  • World Net Daily
  • World Truth TV

There you have it: news media ranked from best to worst, based on their factuality, bias, critical thought, etc.

If you don’t agree, feel free to use them how you see fit, but ask yourself this – is your disagreement because there’s solid evidence something ranks different? Or because the source agrees (or disagrees) with your opinion and therefore you want it ranked different?


The Fallacy of the “Left vs. Right” Illusion

The Fallacy of the “Left vs. Right” Illusion

I’m going to take a break in my discussions on firearms to discuss something that affects most arguments and debates: ignorant social and political labels.

How many times have you heard someone start off a post or response with words like “liberal,” “socialist,” “Democrat,” etc.? Often this is accompanied by some denigrating generalization about the group in question, such as “just like a liberal, always <insert-random-negative-behavior>.” Maybe they even go further, using words like “libtards” and “Dumbocraps,” as they enter the realm of schoolyard name-calling.

(Yes, I know it can happen the other way with “conservitards,” “Repugs,” etc… but, as studies have shown, the behavior tends to be more prevalent among certain populations.)

I’m not sure which is worse: the fact that people label others without any knowledge of who they are… or that people use these words without a clue about what they mean. This is the worst of fallacious and ignorant thinking – using generalizations to create a fictional “us vs. them” and then throwing that onto anyone who doesn’t agree to just dismiss them.

People who do this are idiots. Here’s why…

False Dichotomies, Bulverism, and Ad Hominems

That’s a lot of fancy words, but they boil down to one thing: you’re making a logical fallacy when you label someone to dismiss them. When you make a logical fallacy, people often reject you because your argument is bullshit. It’s even worse when you make three different fallacies in one behavior.

  • The world isn’t black-and-white, and neither are the people in it. Neither people nor issues fall neatly into “Left or Right.”
  • You can’t assume someone’s argument is wrong just because you believe their (supposed) profession, party, or philosophy is wrong.
  • You can’t dismiss someone’s argument by attacking them – you must prove their reasoning is faulty, regardless of their (supposed) personal traits or affiliation.

You Keep Using That Word. I Do Not Think It Means What You Think It Means

If you’re going to use words, make sure you know what you’re saying. “Liberal versus Conservative” is bad enough (I’ll discuss the one-axis political spectrum in a moment), but often those using these words are ignorant of their definition.

Liberalism shouldn’t be a dirty word, although it’s not without fault. The philosophy has multiple meanings, including personal autonomy, intellectual and civil liberty, spiritual and moral freedom, and a self-regulating free market. The word has been co-opted and applied to numerous movements over the years (some accurately, some not so much) and refers to a variety of philosophies.

Now, you might say, “Well, modern American liberals are all…,” and yet you’d still be wrong. Why? As I mentioned, it has multiple meanings, and people are rarely all one thing. Someone might believe in personal autonomy but believe the free market should be partially regulated. Or maybe they believe in civil liberties, but that religious belief can only go so far. Not to mention, there’s the presumption that someone standing for something is automatically a “liberal” when they might merely share some of the same ideals.

“Well, what about generalizing conservatives?” You know what, you have a point. You shouldn’t peg people as one thing, especially given the variety of political and philosophical movements. Not all conservatives are the same, especially since many people who think they’re conservative aren’t

I will point out, however, that conservatism has a less broad definition: a philosophy of keeping things “the way they were.” The opposite of conservatism isn’t liberalism, it’s progressivism. While “progress for the sake of progress” is often a pitfall, so is maintaining the status quo just because “that’s how it’s always been.

A Huge Diversity of Political and Philosophical Beliefs

Of course, this brings up an important distinction: the political spectrum isn’t a single axis from Left to Right. You don’t find all Liberals, Socialists, Progressives on one side and all the Conservatives, Capitalists, and Traditionalists on the other. In fact, none of those groups are the same thing and the spectrum of runs not on one axis (Left-to-Right) but two or three.


For example, per Pace News Unlimited famous Political Compass, people often fall anywhere from Economic Left (Socialism) to Right (Capitalism) as well as Social Bottom (Libertarian) to Top (Authoritarian). Going even further, you’ll find that the ideologies often used as labels? Don’t even fall where you think they do.


Look at what lies dead-center, between the extremes of both axes: Liberalism. In fact, Progressives fall slightly more right on the Economic spectrum, alongside Conservatives and Libertarians Also noteworthy, that Conservatives stand for bigger government (despite what their constituents think) and Libertarians are the ones who want smaller government.

All those “Leftists” that are so often grouped together, labeled, and dismissed? They constitute over 75% of the spectrum, from Centrists to Socialists, Communists to Anarchists. Yet, people still want to generalize all those different people as “them”? They really believe in a simple world where everyone is “Left” or “Right”?

Even more amusing is where the politicians fall on this whole spectrum.


So many people talk about “Left versus Right,” “Liberal versus Conservative,” and the people they support? They fall far out of their own ideologies.

Hillary? She’s an Economic “right winger,” even more-so than actual conservatives. Clinton falls somewhere on the edge of ultra-capitalism and traditionalism. Yet, somehow “right wing” voters were convinced she’d take down the economy with her “liberal” ideals.

All of the GOP candidates? They’re even more authoritarian than their own base, with Trump and Jeb Bush outright fascists while Cruz and Rubio are skirting into fundamentalism. Yet, their constituents truly believed they’d bring about an end to big government and “drain the swamp.”

The only candidates standing close to what they claim? The independents and third-party. Sanders sits on the line of Social Democratism and Liberalism, a true Economic “Leftist” but moderate on government. Jill Stein is slightly more Libertarian and Socialist than he is, sitting in what’s known as “Left-Libertarianism.” Gary Johnson is what’s known as a “Libertarian Capitalist,” supporting an absolute free market even more extreme than your average Libertarian or Conservative.

The irony of this is, most of the people supporting these candidates, particularly the two major parties? Don’t even know what the Hell they’re supporting. They believe whatever the candidate, or their party, says, but their voting record is usually far from the mark. Then they apply that misinformation to anyone they meet, denigrating them for an illusion that they themselves fell for.

Even More Complex than Most Think

All of the above assumes that these political, philosophical, and social movements only fall on two axes. In reality, there are now theories about three (or even more) axes. The point is – nothing is as simple as you believe, and the second you start throwing around labels? The only “simple” thing is you.

So, the next time you see someone responding with “liberal,” “conservative,” “left,” “right,” etc. as an attack? Share this article. Maybe they won’t read it (which is often the mentality of those who sling these labels around). Hopefully, some do, though, and spreads the word.

Then we can get out of this “us versus them” mindset that is the real divisive behavior.

If you want to see where you fall on the political spectrum, try the two-axis Political Compass or the three-axis Vosem Chart. You might be surprised where you place or how you compare to those you’ve voted for in the past.