How nwsly scores media bias.
The source-rating system documented here is an nwsly+ feature. Every source nwsly cites is labeled with an in-house bias rating, factuality score, ownership profile, funding model, and one-line editorial posture. This page is the canonical reference for how those labels get made. Argue with us in public if we got one wrong.
Where this shows up: the free tier surfaces the source name and the brief. nwsly+ subscribers see the full source-rating layer on every brief — bias band, ideology tag, factuality, ownership, funding model. This page documents the system so the rating you see on a card is defensible end-to-end.
nwsly's bias methodology is a two-layer system combining a five-point political spectrum rating (Left · Lean Left · Center · Lean Right · Right) with a granular ideology tag (e.g. Libertarian, Movement Conservative, Establishment Liberal). Applied to 185 US news sources across national, state, and city coverage — and growing — with quarterly editorial review. Each source also carries a separate factuality score, ownership disclosure, and funding model. We assign every label in-house, cross-reference AllSides, Ad Fontes, and Media Bias/Fact Check as inputs, and publish our reasoning.
Every source in nwsly carries a bias label, an ideology tag, a factuality rating, and an ownership disclosure. We assign them ourselves. We publish how. This page is the full methodology.
The thesis
Media bias is real, measurable, and not the same thing as inaccuracy. A factual article can still frame events in ways that favor one political orientation. Readers deserve to know which direction that framing leans. We believe transparency about sourcing is more useful than pretending objectivity exists.
Two layers, not one
We use a two-layer system. The first layer is a five-point bias spectrum: Left, Lean Left, Center, Lean Right, Right. This tells you the direction an outlet's coverage consistently leans. It is the at-a-glance label you see on every card in the app.
The second layer is an ideology tag. This tells you what kind of Left or Right the outlet represents. Reason and the Daily Wire both rate Right or Lean Right. They agree on almost nothing beyond lower taxes. Reason is Libertarian. The Daily Wire is Movement Conservative. The bias band groups them. The ideology tag distinguishes them.
We built two layers because the five-band spectrum is a useful simplification and a genuine limitation. The post-2016 political realignment shattered the assumption that "Right" is one thing. A Traditional Conservative outlet like National Review and a Populist Conservative outlet like the New York Post occupy the same bias band but serve different audiences, emphasize different values, and frame the same stories differently. The same is true on the left. The New York Times (Establishment Liberal) and Mother Jones (Progressive Populist) are both Lean Left or Left. A Jacobin reader and an Atlantic reader would each tell you the other is barely on their side.
The bias band answers: which direction does this outlet lean? The ideology tag answers: what kind of leaning is it?
The five-point bias spectrum
We rate every source on a five-point scale. Each band describes a pattern of editorial behavior observed across the outlet's news coverage over time — not a judgment of individual articles.
Left — Coverage consistently reflects progressive policy assumptions. Stories emphasize systemic inequality, government intervention, and social justice frameworks.
Lean Left — Coverage tilts center-left. Reporting is fact-based, but story selection and framing favor progressive perspectives. The tilt is observable but not constant. Sources: NYT, Washington Post, NPR, The Atlantic, ProPublica.
Center — Coverage does not consistently favor either direction. Center does not mean unbiased. It means the bias does not reliably point one way. Wire services anchor this category. Sources: AP, Reuters, The Hill, Axios, BBC News.
Lean Right — Coverage tilts center-right. Reporting is fact-based, but story selection and framing favor conservative perspectives. Source: WSJ (news desk).
Right — Coverage consistently reflects conservative policy assumptions. Stories emphasize limited government, traditional values, and skepticism of progressive institutions. Sources: Fox News, National Review.
The ideology layer
Each source also carries an ideology tag visible on its profile page. These tags describe the specific political tradition, editorial identity, or institutional posture the outlet represents.
| Source | Bias | Ideology |
|---|---|---|
| NYT | Lean Left | Establishment Liberal |
| WSJ | Lean Right | Market-Liberal Conservative |
| AP | Center | Wire Service / Neutral |
| Fox News | Right | Populist Conservative |
| Washington Post | Lean Left | Establishment Liberal |
| Reuters | Center | Wire Service / Neutral |
| National Review | Right | Traditional Conservative |
| The Atlantic | Lean Left | Anti-Populist Liberal |
| NPR | Lean Left | Cosmopolitan Liberal |
| The Hill | Center | Centrist Insider |
| Axios | Center | Centrist Insider |
| ProPublica | Lean Left | Investigative Progressive |
| BBC News | Center | Liberal Internationalist |
| Bloomberg | Center | Pro-Business Centrist |
| The Economist | Center | Classical Liberal |
| The Dispatch | Lean Right | Never-Trump Conservative |
| Reason | Lean Right | Libertarian |
| The Free Press | Center | Heterodox / Iconoclast |
| The Daily Wire | Right | Movement Conservative |
| New York Post | Right | Populist Conservative |
| The Guardian US | Left | Social Democrat |
| Mother Jones | Left | Progressive Populist |
| Christian Science Monitor | Center | Solutions-Journalism Centrist |
The ideology tag is not a second bias rating. It is a description of the editorial tradition the outlet operates within. Two outlets can share a bias band and occupy different ideological positions. That is the point.
We do not use ideology as the primary label for three reasons. First, the taxonomy would require 10 to 15 categories, and every label would be contested. Second, casual readers can intuit Left/Center/Right immediately. They cannot intuit what "fusionist" or "Third Way" means without explanation. Third, a 15-category system would make our daily card selection unworkable — the "Democratic Socialist perspective on this story" slot would be empty most days.
The two-layer system gives sophisticated readers the distinction they want while keeping the daily experience simple.
Factuality rating
Bias and factuality are separate measurements. An outlet can be biased and factual. An outlet can appear centrist and publish unverified claims.
We rate factuality on a three-point scale:
High — Rigorous sourcing standards. Claims are attributed. Errors are corrected publicly. Major factual failures are rare.
Mixed — Factual reporting alongside content that omits context, uses misleading framing, or fails to distinguish verified from unverified claims. Corrections are inconsistent.
Low — Regularly publishes unverified claims or content designed to mislead. We do not include Low-factuality sources in our synthesis pipeline.
Fox News receives a Mixed factuality rating. Its news desk maintains standards consistent with High. Its opinion programming and some digital content have amplified claims later debunked. The blended output pattern merits Mixed.
Ownership and funding transparency
We disclose ownership type for every source. How an outlet is funded shapes its incentive structure.
Corporate / conglomerate — Revenue from advertising, subscriptions, or a mix. Examples: Fox News (Fox Corporation), WSJ (News Corp).
Family or individual — Owned by an individual with editorial influence that may or may not be exercised. Example: Washington Post (Jeff Bezos via Nash Holdings).
Nonprofit or grant-funded — Revenue from donations and reader contributions. Reduces advertiser pressure, creates donor-influence questions. Examples: NPR, ProPublica.
Wire service — Revenue from licensing content to clients across the spectrum. Structural incentive toward neutrality. Examples: AP, Reuters.
Public / state-affiliated — Funded wholly or partly by a government. Example: BBC News (UK license fee, editorially independent by charter).
Quarterly review process
Bias labels and ideology tags are not permanent. We review every source quarterly. Each review evaluates:
Coverage pattern analysis. We read a structured sample of the outlet's output from the preceding quarter. We track story selection, headline framing, and source attribution patterns.
Credibility events. Corrections, retractions, ownership changes, editorial shakeups. A major credibility event can trigger an interim review.
External input comparison. We consult AllSides, Ad Fontes Media, and Media Bias/Fact Check. We use them as reference points, not authorities. When our rating diverges from all three, we document why.
Rating change threshold. A label moves when the pattern moves — not after a single article or controversy. We publish a changelog entry for every rating change.
Inputs we use but do not blindly aggregate
AllSides uses blind surveys, editorial review, third-party data, and community feedback. Their system is the most transparent. Community feedback can introduce sample bias.
Ad Fontes Media uses trained analyst panels to rate individual articles on a two-axis chart. Their approach is the most granular. Chart placement shifts depending on which articles are sampled.
Media Bias/Fact Check uses a single-analyst model with the largest database. Single-analyst ratings introduce subjectivity that panel approaches reduce.
We treat all three as inputs. When they agree, that informs our confidence. When they diverge, we investigate. We always publish our reasoning.
How these ratings shape your feed
These bias and factuality ratings aren't only labels — they decide what lands in your daily five. New readers get a spectrum-balanced national deck: one story from the left, one from the center, one from the right. From there nwsly personalizes to what you actually engage with, in bias and in topic. Lean into one side and the deck follows you there — we don't force balance on readers who don't want it. But we never seal the bubble: at least one of your three national stories always comes from outside your lean. And the one rating that never bends is factuality — we'll tailor which viewpoints you see, but we won't serve sources we rate unreliable, whatever your lean. Bias is a preference; factuality is a floor.
Where we could be wrong
Spectrum compression. Five bands lose nuance at boundaries. The ideology layer reduces this problem but does not eliminate it. We chose usability over precision for the primary label.
Ideology label contestability. Every ideology tag is debatable. "Is the Atlantic 'Anti-Populist Liberal' or 'Establishment Liberal'?" is a real question. We picked labels that describe observable editorial posture, not self-identification. Some outlets would disagree with our tag. We publish our reasoning.
News-desk isolation. We rate news coverage separately from opinion at outlets where the two diverge. The line between news and opinion is blurring. Analytical news pieces carry implicit framing. Our distinction is cleaner in theory than in practice.
Temporal lag. Quarterly reviews mean ratings can trail reality by up to three months.
Selection bias. We rate 185 sources. That is a curated subset, not the whole American media landscape, and it skews toward higher-circulation national, state, and metro outlets. We keep expanding the list.
Our own bias. Our editorial team has political orientations. We mitigate through structured processes, external checks, and public methodology. We do not claim to have eliminated our bias. We claim to have made it auditable.