- Browse Businesses
- Guides
- Beauty & Fashion
- Consumer Tips
- Write a Review
- For Business
- Request a Review
- Discussions
- Backed by the National Science Foundation
- Sign up
- Log in
Media Bias/Fact Check has a rating of 2.21 stars from 14 reviews, indicating that most customers are generally dissatisfied with their purchases. Media Bias/Fact Check ranks 440th among Blog sites.
This company does not typically respond to reviews
Given all the misinformation on the internet, this is a great tool to check websites that purport to be reporting on the news. Unfortunately many websites on both the left and right (e.g., Vox, HuffPost, Breitbart, Drudge Report) mix opinion, blog writing and purported news reports without clear identification of what is supposed to be factual original and sourced reporting. These sites often lack institutional procedures to fact check and ensure reliable sources for actual "news" articles.
Mediabiasfactcheck has been repeatedly caught in lies and distortion of truth. Repeated claims that have proven false about Covid alone are enough to quit using them. Takes going to court to get them to correct lies they publish. It is atotally discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker' site that has been served with a ‘cease and desist' legal notice for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
Mediabiasfactcheck has been repeatedly caught in lies and distortion of truth. Repeated claims that have proven false about Covid alone are enough to quit using them. Takes going to court to get them to correct lies they publish. It is atotally discredited, self-styled ‘fact-checker' site that has been served with a ‘cease and desist' legal notice for publishing unsubstantiated and defamatory claims against Principia Scientific International (PSI).
Don't trust Fact checkers, especially not this one. It favors fake news on the left, and to true sites that are not on the mainstream media, it labels as conspiracy theory and junk pseudo science, when the truth is just the opposite. This website is as biased and as full of lies as you get.
It would be helpful when making defamatory statements to provide some form of evidence.
Given all the misinformation on the internet, this is a great tool to check websites that purport to be reporting on the news. Unfortunately many websites on both the left and right (e.g., Vox, HuffPost, Breitbart, Drudge Report) mix opinion, blog writing and purported news reports without clear identification of what is supposed to be factual original and sourced reporting. These sites often lack institutional procedures to fact check and ensure reliable sources for actual "news" articles.
Some fact check resource, NOT!
I was recently doing some research online, when I noticed mediafactcheck.com.
I read a few of their so-called "Facts" and found they are not facts at all, but rather blaten lies. That's right, LIES! I Probably won't look into it, but would be interesting to know who is funding them.
When making such a statement you should provide an example of where we lied. We are transparent in funding. We do not receive any funding from politicians, organizations or groups. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/funding/
Media Bias/Fact Check is biased in at least some of their reviews, as evidenced in this quotation: " In review, Medical News Today generally publishes very well-sourced credible medical news that is Pro-Science. However, they also cover alternative medicine, which would be fine if they were discrediting it." They reveal their bias against alternative medicine. "Alternative medicine" is not "one thing" that can be lumped together like this. Alternative Medicine is also not automatically Anti-Science, as is implied here.
Tip for consumers:
My bias (yes, I, too have a bias) is that those who evaluate the bias or lack thereof in other websites or businesses need to be as unbiased as possible, or at the very least, very upfront about the biases they have. I quickly found multiple examples of bias on their website, and found nothing revealing/acknowledging or admitting their own biases.
After studying the many of their ratings I find them to be ironically bias themselves. Over and over again they seem to ignore anything negative regarding left leaning sources. (Hopefully not disingenuously). Here is an example of their bias: https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest
Tip for consumers:
My tip is to only use their ratings as a guide.......not as gospel. Much more prudent to fact check each article on your own as much as possible instead either believing or not believing what is reported based on a source rating by any company.
This website lies in its reviews, its founder and CEO, Dave V. has been caught changing the ratings of news outlets who criticize him and his website for being dishonest. ¹ Do not use this website! ¹ https://www.justfactsdaily.com/media-bias-fact-check-incompetent-or-dishonest
Tip for consumers:
Dishonest, caught changing the reviews of a website it didn't like, caught doing the same thing for Just Facts Daily.
Accurate, educational useful and enlightening, also understandable that people on both far left or far right will be offended to learn the truth re how their trusted news source is rated in the world.
Expansive coverage with 3800 detailed reports makes this site invaluable. By checking results across many other sources, this site compares well as its info dovetails with known excellent standards.
This site is helpful, but this site does look a little biased towards the left. It seems that they are rating left and left-center sites more favorably than right and right-center sites. For example, using their filtered search, there are a few left-center sources that are rated very high in factual reporting, but no right-center sources seem to hit the very high mark (Proof: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left-Center&factual_reporting=very_high AND https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Right-Center&factual_reporting=very_high).
In addition, there also seems to be FAR more LEFT sources being rated as high in factual reporting than RIGHT sources (Proof: https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&factual_reporting=high AND https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Right&factual_reporting=high).
Even if this is just how the internet is with left-leaning sources generally being more reliable than right-leaning sources and/or the right spewing out more bs than the left, this POSSIBLE bias is still there.
--- Rant incoming (oversimplified summary: this page got raided with ultraconservative 1-star reviews) ---
About the concerning number of negative reviews and how highly voted they've been, it looks more like some conservative raid than genuinely valid reviews that should be taken into consideration since a lot of the negative reviews have a questionable validity at best. Most of the accounts posting these negative reviews only have 1 review, indicating that this is the work of either one person using many alts to bring down MBFC's rating, or an angry mob who created sitejabber accounts for the sole purpose of giving MBFC 1-star reviews.
I did check the profiles of some of the reviewers with many reviews, and one of them (not saying the name) has a very clear history of poorly rating pro-science sources (that I assumed told them to wear a mask) and other credible Left-Center bias sources. They even gave the CDC a 1-star rating (I didn't mistype anything I literally mean the literal CENTER FOR DISEASE CONTROL) all because the CDC told them to wear a mask, which if you ask me is a BIG AND BRIGHT red flag.
Not to mention this site has a very low amount of reviews to the point where any ultraconservative Facebook friend group could easily overwhelm the little positive reviews there are in the first place and bring MBFC's rating down to the trenches. I did hear that reviews on sitejabber that failed to criticize the website got deleted and only the ones that criticize or straight-up slander the site get accepted, but correct me if I just heard a conspiracy theory (for now I think it is).
--- End of rant ---
I know that sites like these gotta make money one way or another, but some features are locked behind a paywall, like journalist bias and credibility ratings, which is pretty disappointing. That's the only real negative I have to say here.
TLDR: This site is pretty reliable, but note that left-leaning sources are generally voted more positively in terms of factual reporting here than right-leaning sources, which could either be due to a slight left bias or this just being the way the internet is. The reason that this site is rated so poorly is because a bunch of ultraconservatives have raided this page with 1-star reviews. The poor reviews all have questionable validity and the reviewers who made these reviews have a questionable history of not having any other reviews or having many other questionable far-right-biased reviews on pro-science and credible left-center sources.
And as always folks, use this site as a guide and not a gospel of truth.
Gave this a 5 star review since it's the most I can do to help combat the ultraconservative raid that happened here.
BTW Sitejabber, this isn't in any way a shopping site so I don't need proof of purchase.
Tip for consumers:
Something to be aware about is that this site has more left-leaning sources deemed as highly credible than right-leaning sources. Whether this is due to bias or the state of the internet is up to you, but I'm more on the state of the internet thing.
Don't trust the negative reviews they're mostly just ultraconservatives pissed that this site isn't promoting their delusions.
Media Bias Fact Check is supposed to give "objective" ratings to news sites.
Well, I did a little experiment. At random, I checked out 10 sources that they rated at one end of the political spectrum. We'll call this Set A. Then I checked out 10 sources they rated to be at the OPPOSITE end of the spectrum, which we'll call Set B.
For Set A, they listed all the sources as "mostly factual" or "highly factual."
For Set B, however, they listed all the sources as "mixed" (meaning having "mixed" factual content).
Does that sound "objective" to you? And could their OWN bias not be any more obvious?
This site appears to be a total joke.
Considering there are 5000 sources this doesn't seem like a very well constructed study.
Unfortunately it seems this is no exception to the rule that almost all of these are titled politics
Tip for consumers:
Just read different sources and stop trusting things to do the work for you. Everything is trying to sell you something if it's on a screen. Even this. Im trying to sell this idea to you. Which one you buying? That every time the conservative side is fact checked its a total lie and makes them look bad and every leftist angle makes them look great. They selectively edit or change the premise of the condemnation if it makes their side look bad then call it False, or completely lack context.
Your statement is patently false. A simple search on the website reveals this to be a false statement. https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/filtered-search/?bias=Left&factual_reporting=mixed
This site does not really fact check website. It used to discredit media sites that do not follow a certain narrative.
Discounted and dismissed by real fact-checking outfits like Poynter, Mediabiasfactcheck is a small group of amateurs pretending - with varying degrees of success - to be a fact-checking site.
Gain trust and grow your business with customer reviews.
You have been misled by poor sources. We have never been taken to court nor received a cease and desist from PSI. Nor changed their review. He is lying. Further, we rely on the consensus of science regarding Covid and all science. If you don't agree with the consensus, that doesn't mean the consensus is wrong.