As we say, transparency drives truth. We try to ensure that ratings are as objective as possible. Here’s how: our bias ratings start with an AI analysis of a journalist’s or media outlet’s published content. That analysis is then evaluated by a ratings engine which cross-references informational attributes of the e content, its author, and its publishing outlet in order to roll that bias rating up to the appropriate contributing sources. The end result is an aggregated bias rating for journalists and their media outlets based on our analysis of all their published content. . Subject matter experts perform continuous qualitative reviews of our ratings..
We update our assessments by analyzing the published words for new content, regardless of an outlet’s or journalist’s previous rating. This approach is unique to MediaPedia and ensures that its analyses are fair and up-to-date.
Disagree with a rating? We’re always seeking ways to improve our product and welcome feedback for our quality team to review.

• •

  If you're a journalist who wants to challenge a rating,

  click here.

• •

  If you're not a journalist, but want to challenge a rating, click here

  click here

We are constantly updating our data and analytics, propelling us to reevaluate bias and transparency ratings. Our goal is a near real-time data repository and analysis of American news media. This includes review procedures and support operations in order to ensure a high quality product.

Yes. MediaPedia’s methodology combines cutting edge technology with the knowledge of leading media researchers. We invite authors, journalists, and influencers to discuss and facilitate feedback regarding these ratings. Open communication and a vested interest in how their stated intents are being reflected in their published content strengthen the qualitative accuracy of our ratings. As a result, the public can have greater confidence when deciding which news they can trust.

We welcome your thoughts and feedback. Please reach out to us via theContact Usform.