Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?

Agresti, J. D. (2017, April 24). Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest? Retrieved from
Agresti, James D. “Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?” Just Facts. 24 April 2017. Web. 19 June 2024.<>.
Chicago (for footnotes)
James D. Agresti, “Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?” Just Facts. April 24, 2017.
Chicago (for bibliographies)
Agresti, James D. “Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?” Just Facts. April 24, 2017.

By James D Agresti
April 24, 2017

As Just Facts grows in prominence and reputation, an increasing number of scholars, major organizations, and eminent people have cited and recognized the quality work of Just Facts. With this higher profile, Just Facts has also been subject to deceitful attacks. A recent example of such comes from “Media Bias Fact Check,” an “independent media outlet” that claims to be “dedicated to educating the public on media bias and deceptive news practices.”

In the opening paragraph of her review of Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check contributor Faith Locke Siewert writes:

On their article, they use the Richard Sander’s (law professor at UCLA) essay “A Systematic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools.” To support much of their hypothesis, obviously against affirmative action (seeming also to support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior).

Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods:

  • “A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools” is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.
  • Just Facts does not use this paper to support “much of” its research on affirmative action. The research contains more than 60 footnotes, and this paper is just one of them. Just Facts’ full research on racial issues has 498 footnotes, and this paper is two of them.
  • Just Facts does not offer any “hypothesis” in this research, much less “support the notion of black intellectual abilities being inferior.” To the contrary, the opening section of Just Facts’ research on racial issues covers the topic of science and presents multiple facts that challenge that notion.

The flagrant and simplistic nature of these bogus critiques suggests that Media Bias Fact Check is either inept and/or dishonest.

Siewert goes on to write that Just Facts is “a deceptive site because they do use facts, but not all the facts in order to mask their right Bias.” As proof of this, she cites two articles that take issue with the Stanford Law Review paper cited by Just Facts. Neither of these articles appeared in a journal, and one of them is from a publication “written and published entirely by Harvard undergraduates.” Siewert does not even attempt to prove whether the critiques have any factual or logical value.

Worse still, the lone excerpt that Siewert cited from these articles does not even take issue with the facts from Stanford Law Review paper that were presented by Just Facts. Thus, she must not understand the context in which Just Facts cited the paper, or she is lying about it.

By Siewert’s logic, if someone cites a peer-reviewed paper, and anyone argues against it, then the person who cited the paper is “deceptive” and “masking their bias” if they don’t cite the critique—regardless of whether it has any merit or relevance. This inane standard would apply to just about every scholar.

Siewert finishes by writing that “a glance at their sister site gives you their right bias right off the top from just the article headers.” That statement is rife with ignorance. Just Facts Daily is dedicated to debunking widespread untruths propagated by major media and cultural institutions, and such institutions frequently spread left-leaning falsehoods. Hence, the article headers are not evidence of bias on our part but evidence of bias on the part of the media and academia. In cases where right-leaning fictions take hold, and no one properly debunks them, Just Facts goes after them as well.

If Siewert has exercised a bare minimum of diligence to read the “About Us“ page of Just Facts Daily, she would see that it “typically covers topics that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations. There is no need for us to duplicate quality work that is already accessible, so we generally step in when others have not addressed an issue or failed to do so honestly or competently.”

As further evidence of its untrustworthiness, Media Bias Fact Check has declared that PolitiFact “is the gold standard for political fact checking.” To the contrary, Just Facts has documented that PolitiFact has an extensive record of propagating falsehoods.

Like Doug Wellumson, an educator who teaches a course about critical and analytical thinking at Lakeland College (Wisconsin), Just Facts realizes that no one can be totally free of bias. That is why Just Facts offers its millions of readers a “Guarantee of Integrity,” which reads:

Just Facts is passionate about finding the truth and making it known, and thus, we diligently work to ensure that our research is scrupulous. If, however, you should ever find an error in our research or feel that we have missed a critical fact that alters the implications of any matter we have addressed, please contact us, and we promise to make it right.

Just Facts’ adherence to such high standards may be part of the reason why Wellumson recently wrote that “only one fact-check source,, is worth anyone’s time.”

The reality of human nature is that people tend to easily accept that which aligns with their preconceived notions but demand very high standards of proof for anything that challenges their presumptions. Just Facts supplies very high standards of proof, and as a result, people with considerable expertise in the issues addressed by Just Facts have complimented its work. This includes, for example:

  • a Ph.D. professional measurement scientist.
  • a professor of education policy.
  • a Ph.D. oceanographer.
  • a licensed actuary at one of the nation’s largest accounting firms.
  • a manager of several hydroelectric power facilities.
  • the head of corporate development for a biotech company.
  • a Ph.D. biochemist and molecular biologist.

Update (9/19/17): As documented in the emails reproduced below, Just Facts contacted Media Bias Fact Check, and Media Bias Fact Check significantly revised and improved its article about Just Facts. However, it is still far from accurate.

Update (11/3/17): Without notifying Just Facts, Media Bias Fact Check significantly revised its article about Just Facts yet again. This new version uses illogical and sophomoric arguments to criticize Just Facts’ gun control research. The fallacies in these arguments are deflated simply by reading the actual research along with this article from Just Facts. In sum, more than enough evidence is presented above and below to show that Media Bias Fact Check cannot be taken seriously.

Update (2/6/21): Once again, Media Bias Fact Check has revised its article about Just Facts. The article now links to three supposed “Failed Fact Checks” by Just Facts. However, Just Facts already debunked each of them here, here, and here. Yet, Media Bias Fact Check doesn’t even bother to mention that Just Facts replied to those claims. This further illustrates the depths of their dishonesty and/or incompetence.

Also, the owner of Media Bias Fact Check (Dave Van Zandt) has stooped to blaming his underling for the original falsehood-ridden article about Just Facts. He does this by saying that it was written by “a former reviewer, who is no longer affiliated with our organization.” Exposing this duplicity, the website of Media Bias Fact Check stated when the article was first published and still states today that Van Zandt “makes all final editing and publishing decisions.”

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check

Dear Media Bias Fact Check,

Our institute has found materially misleading assertions in your review of our organization, Just Facts. We have published an article that addresses these falsehoods, and I am writing to make you aware in case you would like to respond or issue a correction:

If you prefer Facebook:

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti

Good Morning James,

I wish you had contacted us before writing this article. When there is a dispute on a rating we always have another researcher perform a second or even a third review. We also will always consider the evidence you present in performing these reviews.

We will re-review your website as soon as possible and if changes are warranted we will make them. While this review process is occurring we will hide your page until complete. I would appreciate you doing the same with your article. If we do not see changes then by all means bring the article back as a refutation. I will send the completed review to you here.

If you are ok with this agreement we will proceed.

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt


Thank you for your timely reply.

I’m sorry, but we will not take the article down. Of course, if it contains errors, we will correct them. If you change your article, we will place a note at the end of our article documenting the change.

If you had contacted us before posting your review, this could have been avoided. Most importantly, before any of us posts anything, we should get the facts straight.

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti

Fair enough. I have a thought. It seems in looking that is pretty straightforward and well researched. However, seems to be more opinion based using the research from Justfacts. It seems there should be two separate reviews. One for justfacts that appears to be low bias and presents all sides and the other for Justfactsdaily. We are going to separate the two. I’ll let you know when they are done.

From Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt to Just Facts president Jim Agresti

Good Morning James,

Sorry for the delay in getting the Just Facts site re-reviewed. I am sure you can appreciate how busy we are. First, I want to apologize for the previous review. The reviewer clearly zeroed in on one issue and did not look at the big picture. I feel in my review I did do that. I removed that review and replaced it with mine. I also have another reviewer working on your website. In our communication we are on the same page. I will add his notes when he completes them. Here is the new review:

I also reviewed Just Facts Daily, which you can view here.

I would appreciate it if you would address the fact that we did re-review your website and made appropriate changes. I don’t expect you to remove your article, but I would greatly appreciate you changing the headline to something less inflammatory.



Media Bias Fact Check Review of Just Facts as of 5/2/2017 


These sources have minimal bias and use very few loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes).  The reporting is factual and usually sourced.  These are the most credible media sources. …

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: According to the Just Facts about page “The mission of Just Facts is to research and publish straightforward and thorough facts about public policy issues. To accomplish this with impartiality and excellence, we abide by Standards of Credibility to determine what constitutes a credible fact and what does not.

Reviewing this website is quite challenging due to the sheer volume of information presented. It simply is not possible to cover it all. What I did was I looked at all the policy positions presented and read sections of each and applied what I read to our methodology. Our first criteria is use of loaded words and headlines. My review shows zero use of loaded words and headlines always match the content of articles, therefore Just Facts scores 0/10 in this criteria. The second criteria we evaluate is factual reporting/sourcing. In this category Just Facts is downright impressive as everything is sourced to credible information from respected sources. Our third criteria is Story Choices (do they cover both sides). In this category Just Facts selected a variety of policy topics and the actual research does offer both sides of the story using facts. However, in this category we found a slight rightward bias based on the selection of information presented. This was minimal however and may be due to reviewer bias. I score this 2/10. Our last criteria is political affiliation which looks at a combination of ownership, funding and the general tone of the information. The owner of this website is James D. Agresti who also operates the website Just Facts Daily that we have rated as having a right-center bias. Mr. Agresti is also author of the book Rational Conclusions, evidencing factual support for the Bible across a broad array of academic disciplines. Mr. Agresti’s Christian political bias is evident on the Just Facts Daily website, but less so here. Just Facts is a Non-Profit. For political affiliation we rate Just Facts 4/10 based on ownership bias and demonstrated bias on the sister site. When added up this website scores 1.5 Right, which falls within the Least Biased category.


Media Bias Fact Check Review of Just Facts Daily as of 5/2/2017 


These media sources are slightly to moderately conservative in bias. They often publish factual information that utilizes loaded words (wording that attempts to influence an audience by using appeal to emotion or stereotypes) to favor conservative causes. These sources are generally trustworthy for information, but may require further investigation. …

Factual Reporting: HIGH

Notes: Just Facts Daily (JFD) is a news, opinion and fact checking website with a right-center bias in reporting. JFD’s tagline is “Be Informed, Not Just Opinionated.” This website is certainly informative, but it also appears to be quite opinionated. First, lets look at factual reporting. We could not find any evidence of JFD making certified false claims. Each article is also impeccably sourced to credible information to convey their narrative. Therefore, we rate them high for factual reporting. The right-center bias designation comes from multiple factors. First, there is excessive use of loaded emotional words in the headlines. The following loaded words (words that attempt to influence through positive or negative emotion) were found in the first 15 headlines: Incompetent, Dishonest, Catastrophically, Deceitful, Brazen Lie, Smearing, Deadly Falsehoods. Most of these words appeared in headlines when the topic was about liberal politicians or liberal policy. Further, the headlines that described conservative policy did not contain these negative connotations. They were mostly neutral in wording.

In order to keep this short I will discuss only one article. The article is entitled “Clinton and Obama’s Brazen Lie About the Iraq Withdrawal.” The loaded language, “Brazen Lie” does not fit the content of the article. Clinton and Obama cite the SOFA agreement as the reason for our troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. This is true and not a brazen lie. There is however, more to the story and JFD did a good job of showing that they could have legally extended the troops time in Iraq, but chose not too. Overall, the article is well sourced and for the most part is accurate. The bias is conveyed through the author’s attempt to show that Obama and Clinton are mostly responsible for the rise of ISIS, due to abiding to the SOFA agreement signed by former President Bush. In 2011, at the time of the troop withdrawal, ISIS was not considered a threat and it could not be predicted that they would increase in size and strength in such a short period of time. Essentially, the entire article is an attempt to blame the Obama administration for something that was unforeseen at the time.

In summary, this is a factual website from a sourcing standpoint and impressively researched. It does however convey a right leaning bias through story selection that is more favorable toward conservative causes and more negative toward liberal policy. There is also extensive use of loaded negative emotional words when describing the left. This is the opposite approach that a fact checker should take, when instead they should be using neutral language. We rate this source Right-Center Bias.


From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt


Apologies for the delayed response. I appreciate the changes and think the content is now much closer to reality. However, I still take issue with a few matters.

I plan to reply in more detail tomorrow, but for some simple starters:

1) I think it is fair for you to adopt the standard that fact checkers “should be using neutral language.” And I agree that we use that we use strong language in describing falsehoods. Yet, your review of PolitiFact does not fault it for employing headlines like “Pants on Fire” (with an animated graphic showing flames) or “Voodoo magic” for an article about tax cuts paying for themselves. Likewise, your review of does not criticize it for using such rhetoric, even though its two most recent headlines say that Trump:

  • “left a trail of false, misleading and sometimes puzzling statements in his wake.”
  • is “the candidate we dubbed the ‘King of Whoppers’ in 2015,” and “has held true to form as president.”

2) As I mentioned in my article criticizing Media Bias Fact Check, Just Facts Daily “typically covers topics that have not been accurately and thoroughly covered by other organizations.” This is why we mostly critique claims from the left. However, in cases where right-leaning fictions take hold, and no one properly debunks them, we go after them with equal vigor. For example: “Those are quintessential cases of liberals talking out of both sides of their mouths, and conservatives are just as guilty.”

3) “The word “catastrophically” was not used as a “loaded emotional word” in our headline. The context shows that this word was quoted from Bill Nye and was the subject off our fact check.

From Just Facts president Jim Agresti to Media Bias Fact Check president Dave Van Zandt

Hi Dave,

Sorry for the delay again.

I have hard time understanding how you square this statement you made with the facts below: “Clinton and Obama cite the SOFA agreement as the reason for our troop withdrawal from Iraq in 2011. This is true and not a brazen lie.”

In October 2011, the New York Times reported:

  • “there was an understanding … that a sizable American force would stay in Iraq beyond that date.”
  • the troops did not stay, because the Obama administration “pressed the Iraqi leadership” to take a “controversial” public stand on immunity for troops “that ended any possibility of keeping American troops here past December.”

On the same day, Foreign Policy reported:

  • Obama “administration sources and Hill staffers also” said “that the demand that the troop immunity go through the [Iraqi] Council of Representatives was a decision made by the State Department lawyers and there were other options available to the administration, such as putting the remaining troops on the embassy’s diplomatic rolls, which would automatically give them immunity.”
  • “ ‘The White House has always seen the president’s pledge to get all troops out of Iraq as a core commitment, period,’ the White House official said.”

The facts are clear that the SOFA agreement was not the reason that the troops left Iraq. Beyond this, Obama took credit for pulling the troops out of Iraq on multiple occasions until ISIS took over. Then he said: “What I just find interesting is the degree to which this issue keeps on coming up, as if this was my decision.” How is that not a brazen lie?

This statement is also at odds with the facts beneath it: “In 2011, at the time of the troop withdrawal, ISIS was not considered a threat and it could not be predicted that they would increase in size and strength in such a short period of time. Essentially, the entire article is an attempt to blame the Obama administration for something that was unforeseen at the time.”

The issue here is not whether ISIS in particular would take over, but if any radical element would do so, and the facts were clear at the time that this was distinct possibility:

  • In August 2010, Babakir Zebari, Iraq’s top army officer, stated: “At this point, the withdrawal is going well, because they are still here. But the problem will start after 2011 – the politicians must find other ways to fill the void after 2011. If I were asked about the withdrawal, I would say to politicians: the US army must stay until the Iraqi army is fully ready in 2020.”
  • In October 2011, the New York Times reported that “the arguments of two White House officials, Thomas E. Donilon, the national security adviser, and his deputy, Denis McDonough, prevailed over those” of “military officials, who “said they wanted a ‘residual; force of as many as tens of thousands of American troops to remain in Iraq past 2011 as an insurance policy against any violence.”
  • In October 2011, Foreign Policy reported that the troop pullout “represented the triumph of politics over the reality of Iraq’s fragile security’s requiring some troops to stay, a fact everyone had assumed would prevail.”

How can you say that this “was unforeseen at the time”?

I also take issue with the whole notion of a “Christian political bias.” Although evangelical Christians tend to be conservative, I know quite a few who are not. To me, a true “Christian political bias” is simply a “bias” to being uncompromisingly honest. Regrettably, such honesty is so rare that it is often treated as a bias.

  • April 24, 2017 at 12:28 PM

    First, I must admit still watching to validate you. I am like many, gunshy of the fact checkers, having been burned. I like your site so far and pray for your integrity, wherever the “Truth” leads.
    Relativism has become the bane of truth and facts in our age. Keep up the good fight.

    • May 2, 2017 at 6:25 PM

      Hello Mike, I have been using Just Facts for a long time! In fact this is the only “website” my college professors allowed us to cite in our papers. I have never been let down! I hope this helps! Have a wonderful day!

      • June 16, 2018 at 12:40 PM

        But that’s wrong though.

        The healthiest thing to do is to get your information from as wide of an array of sources as practically possible.

        • June 16, 2018 at 1:51 PM

          Actually, the healthiest things to do is get information from a wide array of credible sources. It is easy to waste a lot of time reading junk unless one learns how to quickly identify it.

      • August 5, 2019 at 11:08 PM

        A college prof that “only” allows the use of a single website is sketchy. Please use many sources, hopefully all reliable.

  • April 25, 2017 at 2:06 AM

    I consider myself to be reasonable well versed in several scientific areas and have never had reason to question any conclusion put forward by Just Facts. Nevertheless, being somewhat skeptical by nature, I occasionally do a bit of research, mainly on the web, and have yet to find any fault whatsoever.

  • April 25, 2017 at 2:30 PM

    Just Facts is really good, but it’s departure from its mission statement in the introduction to the Racial Issues segment is disappointing. By mentioning its opinions on the topic instead of letting the facts speak for themselves (wherever they may lead), it left me with the impression that Just Facts is afraid of being labeled “racist.”

    • April 27, 2017 at 10:01 PM

      It’s difficult to fault anyone for being overly careful when writing on racial issues. When you see what happens to some of our best and most fearless academics, i.e., Charles Murray, it’s understandable how other fact-based reporters might play to the side caution on this volatile topic.

  • April 26, 2017 at 7:18 PM

    Lol… Just Facts is one of the only media outlets I trust.

  • April 27, 2017 at 7:46 PM

    Your site is the most trusted, factual, and well sourced site on the internet. I often refer others to your site and have cited your works in many of my articles. When threatened by true facts, the less and often far less credible media outlets resort to incredulous fictional claims in a vain attempt to discredit the truly honest. Keep doing what you’re doing, because the world needs you. Honest facts have a solid foundation whereas those attacking will shift as sand in fast waters.

  • April 28, 2017 at 11:16 AM

    I promote Just Facts in newspaper letters to the editor, my friend’s and acquaintances every chance I get. I also contribute to Just Facts. It is no wonder that J. F. has been and will be attacked by truth haters of all stripes. There are many Alinskyite organizations out there! Keep up the excellent work.

  • May 2, 2017 at 6:31 PM

    This is my GO TO site for actual facts! I cite it ALL the time in my current writing (I first learned of Just Facts in college). There have been “facts” that I may not like or seem to the left, but they are facts! You can’t argue (or shouldn’t) facts! I find this site to be incredibly unbiased which is very refreshing. And sometimes if we do not like the facts reported then we need to try to work to change them (such as with racism or other facts that we can do something about in the future) not claim racism, or right wing bias! This just makes me sad! I have referred many people to this site and some will still argue their WITHOUT reading what I have sent because thats just not what they believe or want to believe. All we can do is continue to spread TRUTH! Thank you Just Facts for having integrity when so many “fact checking” websites and journalist today seem to have forgotten integrity.

    • May 13, 2017 at 6:11 AM

      I did go in and read the updated review, and I, like many of Just Fact’s readers appericate the corrections as it is important that the readers get the truth.
      I do have a concern, You mention Mr. Agresti and his book Rational Conculusions, and I had to wonder what that had to do with the Just Facts Daily site? So I went and watched the trailer and unlike the updated reviews mentions I am familiar with both Just Fact and Just Fact Daily (as I have been using the site since my college days), and I still didn’t understand.
      I find it very sad that after a great review Mr. Agresti’s “Christian Political Bias” was tied in to his book and again was tied in to make it sound like the Just Facts Daily site “leaned” more to the Right. This is false. If you read the articles on the Just Facts Daily site, they line up with the Just Facts site, not with Mr. Agresti’s book or with Mr. Agresti’s “Christian Political Bias”, this was a cheap shot, and is identity politics at it worst. There was no mention of Mr. Agresti other achievements, nor of Mr. Cordone. Why? Because none of those would have fit the “right wing bias”.
      If anyone picked up this site you would NOT know if it was left or right, but by YOU writing this in your review that leaves a BIAS ALREADY in their mind. That’s NOT OK! Just Facts has a guarantee of integrity, not to mention the mounds of verifiable sources that come with their research!
      Now in your review you gave polifact the Gold Standard of Fact Checking, yet they get their answers from politicans, politicans often lie. Also there is often no hard research behind polifact. Sure its a fun site to follow, but liar, liar pants on fire? When did our country become so polarized and soft that we started hiding from the truth? And when did it become OK for journalists to print false facts and pass them off as facts?
      The sooner people stop using identity politics to separate each other, start telling the truth about what is really going on and what isn’t going on the sooner we can maybe get our country back.
      Again I thank you for revising most of this. It is appreciated. I do wish you would have left out the identity politics part.
      Have a nice day.

  • May 7, 2017 at 1:17 AM

    Just Facts has not amended this article because I am waiting on a reply to two emails I sent to you. These emails document multiple false statements and double standards in a new review you did of Just Facts Daily. I am happy to update this article, but I would first like to see how you respond, so we don’t need to update it again.

    • May 8, 2017 at 8:18 AM

      Good response. It’s also notable that MediaBiasFactCheck has failed to inform its readers of its deletion and rewrite of the original assessment.

      • July 15, 2017 at 3:12 AM

        Deleted it? Without notice? That’s terrible.

        MBFC has discredited itself to the point where it can’t be taken seriously without major reform. Its first version of its principles for fact-checking was obviously cribbed from PolitiFact without attribution (Dave fixed that after I pointed it out). And MFBC somehow thinks that PunditFact’s ratings of network pundits means PolitiFact is rating news network reliability, which is just silly. I pointed that out, also. Dave said he’d look into it, but when I checked days later nothing had changed (maybe it’s fixed now–I don’t know).

  • July 13, 2017 at 11:04 PM

    It is sad when Just Facts does not show up on a google search for fact checking sites, not even if you go as far a four pages in. I Even tried this search “fact checking sites just facts” and still Just Facts does not show up.

  • August 18, 2017 at 5:22 PM

    More hypocrisy from MB/FC: Any source criticizing Islam is automatically deemed “questionable,” but they’re perfectly fine with any source criticizing Christianity, as well as doing so themselves.

  • December 12, 2017 at 7:20 PM

    I used to believe MBFC was a great resource in finding out information about specific websites. After a few years of using the website however, I noticed glaring inconsistencies regarding their conclusions about websites. Popular conservative leaning websites were pushed further to the right than expected, regardless of the user votes, and usually given a “Mixed” rating for honest reporting. Popular liberal leaning websites are nearly always a couple of clicks closer to “least biased” than their conservative counterparts, and nearly always listed as “High” rating for honest reporting. Usually the ratings conflict with the “user voted” ratings. So I emailed the website, and was told that, while the user votes are taken into account, the actual rating is done by “Media Bias Fact Check staff”. Problem though, when Huffington is given a “High” rating for honest reporting, yet Fox news is labeled “Mixed”, you know there is a major problem. I’m not arguing on the validity of either outlet in terms of high or mixed reporting, but on face value, both support the same types of articles, the only real difference being that one supports a liberal view, the other conservative. But oddly, the liberal viewpoint is given much higher marks for both validity, honesty, and being least biased. If Media Bias Fact Check were to be given a rating, they would be “Left” with “Mixed” honesty. Interestingly enough, they don’t rate themselves. Not that it matters, they’d certainly put themselves squarely in the middle as “Least Biased” with “High” ratings for honesty, neither of which are even remotely true. Uproxx, Vox, Daily Beast, Newsweek, all well known for left leaning reporting, are all listed as “High” for factual reporting. Problem is, looking at a list of articles on any given day, most on these sites are rife with opinionated articles that are poorly supported, or not supported at all by any source other than the article author’s own obvious personal bias. So I MBFC again, and pointed out some glaringly opinionated unsupported articles on both Newsweek and Huffington. Surprise surprise, this time MBFC ignored my email and never responded. So at this point I’ve given up on any idea that MBFC being “unbiased”. They most certainly are very biased. The problem with a website such as theirs is that you can fall into a tunnel vision trap, where your own political beliefs push your agenda left or right, despite good intentions, and you are stuck in your own bubble of self assumed intellectual arrogance, so much so that you refuse to accept the reality of the situation even when glaringly pointed out to you.

  • January 7, 2018 at 10:54 PM

    Lol, you can tell most of the comments here are from the people who run this website. How pathetic. The rating you were given was accurate.

    • January 8, 2018 at 8:37 AM

      Hogwash. Other than the one comment I made, none of them are “from the people who run this website.”

      • April 18, 2018 at 4:28 PM

        Great post. Dave. Keep up the goos work.

  • February 11, 2018 at 7:53 AM

    Big League Politics – Wikipedia
    Big League Politics is an American right-wing news website founded by former Breitbart News employees. Its editor-in-chief is former Breitbart reporter Patrick Howley. The website was launched in early 2017 as the media arm of the America First Project, a rebranding initiative of Dustin Stockton’s Western Representation …

    Big League Politics – Media Bias/Fact Check
    Aug 2, 2017 – Notes: Big League Politics is an Alt-Right news and opinion blog founded by Patrick Howley, former writer for the far right Daily Caller and Breitbart. In reviewing articles on the Big League Politics website it is clear that the sole mission is to promote the agenda of President Trump. Essentially, this could be ..

    I copied these two intro’s of yours and Wikipedia to demonstrate the obvious bias you [editor: Media Bias Fact Check] DO show towards [editor: against] conservative sites. Wikipedia introduces itself with NO biased language whereas in just a few words you deem it necessary to refer to Big League Politics as “alt-right’, a term that inaccurately describes many conservatives!, also you refer to them as a “blog” , and totally for “Trump’s agenda”. Somewhat very biased yourself? Definitely!

  • September 8, 2018 at 11:28 PM

    It’s pretty hopeless. We will have to deal with an overwhelming liberal bias in the media for the rest of our lives, no matter our age. When so-called fact checkers are so blatantly biased, what hope is there? Facts and logic rarely make much of a dent in one’s bias. So what to do? In my case, tend to my own garden and ignore as much MSM as possible. Life is much more pleasant that way. Perhaps it’s a copout, but life is short.

    As for you, justfactsdaily, keep up the good fight! In spite of my defeatist attitude, I’m happy to know that you exist. You are vastly outnumbered, but you can correct some distortions of truth. Every time you do that, you have made a difference.

  • August 28, 2019 at 4:56 PM

    It’s difficult for me to know which fact check site to use … there are many. I wish i could know for sure that there is a fact check site that endeavors to tell the truth. Not looking for perfection only God is perfect … so we do the best we can with the information we have … if it doesn’t make sense, then it’s non-sense. This morning i read that Bernie Sanders had a rally of 100,000 and i read some place else that it was 20,000. Neither of them make sense to me.

    • August 28, 2019 at 5:44 PM

      Excellent question. The only way to know for sure who is telling the truth is to do the hard work of conducting comprehensive research and sorting out the details. This is the price we must pay for being informed instead of indoctrinated.

      At Just Facts, we empower readers to conduct such research by citing credible primary sources, linking directly to them, extensively quoting them, and publishing the actual data. We also have an actionable Guarantee of Integrity through which we read and answer every serious criticism sent via email.

      Furthermore, unlike many media outlets and so-called “fact checkers,” Just Facts:

      • doesn’t rely on unproven claims from cherry-picked “experts.”
      • doesn’t misrepresent sources.
      • doesn’t promulgate half-truths.
      • doesn’t employ bait-and-switch tactics.
      • doesn’t apply double standards.
      • doesn’t play “gotcha” by correcting people for minor misstatements.
      • doesn’t assign subjective ratings like “Pinocchios” or “Pants on Fire.”
      • doesn’t merely cover the news but conducts in-depth policy research.

      Our work speaks for itself, and if you dig into it, you will see the difference. This is especially evident in articles where we debunk groups like PolitiFact,, the Washington Post’s Fact Checker, and Snopes.

  • September 15, 2019 at 8:12 PM

    The main thing I have noticed about the so-called fact checkers Snopes, Factcheck, Politifact is the same pervasive “lies of omission” that characterize mos of the “mainstream” (I call them the “corporate media”) sites: if the search in question does not resolve the their liking, they report “no results found”.

    I just tested them using searches to determine if (1) Michael Cohen went to Prague to collude with the Russians (reported by McClatchy DC and “doubled down” on with assurances that “Mueller has the cell phone data”) or (2) if the Obama administration and Hilary Clinton in particular supported a coup against the elected government in Honduras.

    No results found! The only item was half a line on Politifact about “a coup in 2009” with no elaboration or cause; this one is sorely in need of facts as Hilary Clinton took out the references to the coup in the 2nd edition of her “biography”.

    As for MediaBiasFactCheck, the site throws mud at ClimateDepot and WattsUpWithThat as “psuedoscience” when anyone can readily see they simply cite evidence the climatanzis don’t like or can’t refute. See the most recent updates for the howler about the “ClimateChangeWarriors” who went north with a film crew to document the melting pole….and got stuck in the ice and had to be rescued by helicopter (burning fossil fuels!). Too bad they didn’t take little Greta with them.

  • February 10, 2020 at 4:26 PM

    Here is an example of how the left crucifies the right over their reporting. The left Wing media has a long history of trying to stamp out conservative voices.
    While googling the coronavirus, I came upon this article by, “Foreign Policy” a media outlet, out of Toronto Canada, that I had not heard of before”
    The Article is Titled:

    “The Wuhan Virus Is Not a Lab-Made Bioweapon.
    Conspiracy theories are spreading faster than the coronavirus itself”.

    You can read the Article here:
    In the article they first attack the Washington Times, by describing them as having “a distinct ideological bent” and accuse them of claiming that the virus could be linked to a military lab, the “Wuhan Institute of Virology”, when they were simply reporting the statements of an Israeli expert, who had a legitimate opinion.
    The article is here.

    After reading the Washington Times Article, it appeared to me that they were actually just reporting a professional opinion as it was stated to them rather than pushing a conspiracy. I then went to media bias to look up both the FP and the WT:

    Media Bias Fact reported “Foreign Policy” to be to the right of “Least Biased” as shown below:

    Media Bias Fact quoted the Washington Times to the Right of “Right Center” as shown below:

    In my opinion, the FP is left biased and the WT is factual or Center. also reports news outlets, which have engaged in daily slander of president Trump, with the Russia Collusion false accusations, etc, as “center”. I would not trust them.

  • April 6, 2020 at 12:12 PM

    Thank you for this truth. I was using MBFC for a while and started smelling something fishy. Then I found your article and now never believe this site. Also, I learned a long tome ago to ignore Fact Checker on Facebook, and Snopes. You have confirmed my suspicions as I am a Conservative Christian (we are often labeled as crazy), but I always RESEARCH everything to see what is true and balanced.

  • May 5, 2020 at 2:51 AM

    It seems to me that the way human perception works (neuroscientific studies) would mark all of these discussions as mute points. I think the best humanity can hope for on anything is to work towards what we all see as the betterment of our world, but perhaps that is a mute point also. The search for truth is definitely illusionary though, but then agreeing on what creates a better world definitely will also have conflicts.

  • December 12, 2020 at 10:55 AM

    FYI: The Stanford Law Review is not a peer-reviewed journal. As its home page states: “The Law Review is operated entirely by Stanford Law School students and is fully independent of faculty and administration review or supervision.” Traditionally, law reviews are student run, not peer-reviewed. There are a few exceptions, but the Stanford Law Review is not one of them.

    Your lead-off criticism of Media Bias/Fact Check (which organization I neither endorse nor oppose) is therefore factually incorrect: “Those two sentences contain three demonstrable falsehoods: “’A Systemic Analysis of Affirmative Action in American Law Schools’ is not just an essay. It is a peer-reviewed journal paper that was published in the Stanford Law Review. Big difference.”

    • December 12, 2020 at 11:25 PM

      You are mistaken on two counts:

      First, “fully independent of faculty and administration” does not mean a journal is not peer-reviewed. These are two separate matters.

      Second, the Stanford Law Review is peer-reviewed, as proven by a 2011 interview with a senior articles editor who described the process. The paper I cited was published before the Stanford Law Review began peer-reviewing every article, but as shown on the first page of the paper, it was subjected to a peer-review process far more rigorous than a typical peer review:

      I received very helpful, detailed comments on early drafts from Alison Anderson, Bernard Black, Evan Caminker, David Chambers, Roger Clegg, William Henderson, Richard Kahlenberg, Lewis Kornhauser, James Lindgren, Robert Nelson, James Sterba, Stephan Thernstrom, Jon Varat, Eugene Volokh, David Wilkins, and Doug Williams. I also benefited from comments at symposia at the UCLA School of Law, the Rand Institute for Civil Justice, and the 2004 annual meeting of the Law & Society Association, where I presented earlier versions of this Article.

  • May 11, 2021 at 11:57 AM

    It’s hilarious how they discredit right leaning sources by using left wing sources as evidence, Quillette got a lower “Factual Reporting” because they used the words reverse racism, MBFC argued that this was wrong because “Black people can’t be racist against White people”

    They’re a joke

    • February 18, 2022 at 8:02 AM

      James I have never heard of either site until today. However I agree with media fact check. You lead your readers towards conservative conclusions with iffy polls and sourcing. Your articles are also sometimes written like opinion blogs, yet should be as you say “just the facts”.

      If you wanted to lay out just the facts then you wouldnt be going to war with everyone who correctly calls out your bias.

      • April 13, 2022 at 8:35 AM

        Perhaps you could provide some examples to support your assertions?

  • May 15, 2021 at 6:31 PM

    In reality: there is no “Dave Van Zandt” and, “Media Bias FactCheck” is a fraudulent storefront site. A novel investigation into the edit history of the Wikipedia account which submitted the entry on it quickly reveals: IT’S 95% LIKELY THE SAME PERSON IN CHARGE OF BOTH. ALL THE ISSUES THEIR WIKIPEDIA EDITS FOCUS ON JUST SO HAPPEN TO ALIGN WITH HOW THEIR SITE “UPVOTES” OR “DOWNVOTES” A SOURCE’S RELIABILITY (in their opinion).

    What gave it away (to me) was, that, they singularly condemned any political feminist forum critical of transgenderism 100%-of-the-time….WHILE: the Wikipedia user profile identifies themselves as someone named “Raven”, essentially ticking all the boxes of what would be described as “an alternative lifestyle” (they go into quite a narcissistic spiel about it as well on their bio page!) FULLY lock-step with political “woke” nonsense.

    Entire “professional profiles” of non-existent identities and VPNs are faked by hundreds-of-thousands of Internet bad actors everyday, everywhere.

  • April 13, 2022 at 8:48 AM

    The main issue with MBFC is that they use sites they label as decidedly Left to evaluate sites they deem Right. The most egregious example being when they use an extraordinarily ideological org like the SPLC as a evaluator. This ends up slandering many right wing sites and skewing the data.

    I first noticed a problem with MBFC when they seemed to rely on one or two organizations that have a history of failed fact checks to do their fact checking for them. Then I looked at how they rated various media outlets for failed fact checks and noticed egregious inconsistencies that only seemed to skew one way – outlets that fail two or three fact checks (according to their outsourced fact checkers) on the Right are deemed untrustworthy, but major left leaning orgs that have repeatedly reported demonstrably false information on some of the most important issues of the day are still considered reliable.

    Not only does MBFC have a clear bias and sloppy methodology, but they’re simply lazy.


Make a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Articles by Topic