Frequently Asked Questions

Learn more about how we rate bias, assess transparency, and bring clarity to the news. Find out how our platform works and why understanding media bias matters for informed decision-making.

MediaPedia starts from a simple truth: every journalist has a bias. Bias isn’t inherently bad—it’s part of being human. Yet most journalists hide their bias behind the banner of “objective journalism.” This is misleading to Americans who rely on the news to make informed decisions about the issues that impact their daily lives. Further, the lack of bias transparency has caused an erosion of trust in the media.
MediaPedia exists to expose hidden bias, put readers back in control, and elevate journalistic standards.
Our mission is to give the public a clearer picture of the people and institutions driving the national conversation. When you understand a journalist’s bias, you can better decide what news to trust and how to interpret it. Our innovative, proprietary rating system reveals the biases of individual journalists and media outlets. We also dig into backgrounds, funding sources, and relationships that shape how stories are told.

MediaPedia’s goal is to make our ratings as objective as possible. Unlike other ratings organizations, which rate stories based on how individuals view a story or by polling, our proprietary model analyzes tone, sourcing, and context across hundreds of journalists, converting bias into verifiable statistics. Every journalist is subject to this transparent, multi-factor rubric which minimizes human error and provides certainty in a chaotic media environment.

We break down each story into eight measurable criteria: factors like how many sources from each side were quoted, whether certain terms are used to signal a political narrative, how the headline frames the story, and whether important context was left out. Each of those gets a score from –50 to +50.
The overall bias score is the average of these category ratings, producing a spectrum from strong left bias to strong right bias to center. The result is an aggregated bias rating for journalists and their media outlets based on an analysis of all their published content.

Our scale shows degrees.

  • Near zero means a story is balanced.
  • The more negative or positive, the more the story leans toward one side’s (left/right) narrative, sourcing, and framing.
We update the assessments by analyzing new content as it is published in near real time, regardless of an outlet’s or journalist’s previous rating to ensure that the analyses are fair and up-to-date.
And the important thing is: we aren’t deciding what’s ‘true’ or which side is right. We’re looking at how the story was built, what voices were emphasized or minimized, and how the framing works, helping news consumers to trust but verify.
Learn more about our ratings model and processhere

We welcome your feedback. To contact us to make suggestions or comments,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.

Time and time again, we see legacy media commit journalistic malpractice the most. In some cases, they fail to cover the major stories of our time, which have real implications for our lives and for democracy. Take for instance, their failure to cover the Hunter Biden laptop, Biden’s staggering mental health decline or the origins of Covid.
Also, unlike many newer media sources, legacy outlets are more likely to claim they are unbiased. As such, we are initially examining legacy media outlets and the journalists who work at them. We plan to expand over time.

Yes. MediaPedia’s methodology combines cutting edge technology to ensure ratings are objective, along with the expertise of leading media researchers who perform quality reviews.
Our consistent methods and real-time analysis elevate standards for journalism, rewarding transparency and exposing hypocrisy. We’re not here to shame journalists—we’re here to raise the bar for integrity and celebrate honest reporting.
We invite others, especially journalists themselves, to discuss and facilitate feedback regarding the ratings. Ongoing communication and a vested interest in how their intent is reflected in their published content strengthen the accuracy of our ratings. As a result, the public can have greater confidence when deciding which news to trust and how to interpret it.

All journalists have inherent bias that can impact their reporting. Journalists improve their service to the public if those biases are transparent. As such, our journalist profiles may include the following details that help expose bias:
  • Employment history
  • Political affiliations and donations
  • Organizational affiliations
  • Funding or ownership structures for media outlets
  • Social media profiles

MediaPedia does not advocate any political party or ideology. As we always say, bias is a human trait and not inherently bad. Everyone has it, including us. However, it can be harmful when bias is masked under the cloak of objectivity. We aim to expose bias across the media spectrum—whether it leans left or right.
Freedom of the press requires responsibility and integrity. MediaPedia applies consistent measures to those who shape public opinion through the news, regardless of political leaning.

Use it as a platform to help you understand the news you’re consuming. If a story leans heavily one way, now you know. If something is near the center, that tells you the coverage is more balanced.

The goal is to put news consumers in control. Use our tool to understand:

  • What bias is built into the news coverage you consume
  • Who’s behind the stories you read
  • Which institutions influence coverage
  • How financial, ideological, or corporate interests may shape reporting

MediaPedia is an independent nonprofit committed to holding media accountable and supporting an informed citizenry. Our team has extensive experience in journalism, research, communications, and technology.

We are supported by an array of supporters who believe in media accountability, transparency and informing citizens.

We’re proud to have the support of an array of funders who believe in media accountability, transparency and informing citizens.
As our political environment has become increasingly dangerous, so too are threats against donors. In fact, a new report from People United for Privacy shows that a majority of donors are concerned about a non-profit disclosing their information while one in three donors have asked an organization not to share their personal information. We will disclose the names of donors who are comfortable with us doing so but respect the long-held rights of those who wish to give privately.
Meanwhile, our work can be judged by itself, including our methods, principles and engagement, and the media whom we evaluate. Further, we are already transparent about our own biases, which can be found on our website. 

Yes, you may use our profiles or data in your reporting, academic work, or analysis if you cite MediaPedia as the source.

Currently, bulk downloads are not available, but we are exploring options for researchers and journalists. Contact us atinfo@mediapedia.orgfor specific data requests.

You can help MediaPedia grow by donating or spreading the word to friends and colleagues. Just click the “Donate” button at the top of the page to make your tax-deductible gift today. Every contribution fuels our mission to bring transparency to the news you rely on.

MediaPedia is a new way to evaluate media bias that focuses on how news stories are constructed. Unlike other ratings organizations, which rate stories based on how individuals view a story or by polling, we have a specific set of criteria that is run through a proprietary model to determine bias.

We welcome your feedback and suggestions. You can contact ushere