shouldiuse.io

Categories

VERDICT

Mediabiasfactcheck Review

Depends

Should I use Mediabiasfactcheck?

Not disclosed - mediabiasfactcheck.com

· 1 month ago

Use it free as a first-pass check on a news outlet's bias and factuality — journalists and educators do. Don't treat its ratings as authoritative; its methodology and neutrality are actively disputed.

Confidence

Medium. Based on 24 public sources: official pages, review sites, Reddit threads, and academic coverage. Review volumes are small, so sentiment signals are weak.

Ratings

  • Value for money
  • Ease of use
  • Feature depth
  • Support qualityNo support evidence found
  • Security postureNo security evidence in sources

Pricing

Free

Website access

ModelNot disclosed
Monthly feesNot disclosed
HardwareNot disclosed
Free tierYes
Data APICustom quote

Best for

  • Daily readers doing quick bias checks
  • Media-literacy educators
  • Researchers classifying outlet slant
  • Developers wanting a ratings API

Not for

  • Anyone needing peer-reviewed, auditable methodology
  • Newsrooms needing defensible, citable bias certification
  • People wanting one rating to settle what's true
  • Teams needing enterprise media monitoring or SLAs

Gotchas - check before you buy

high

Methodology called informal by scholars; treat ratings as a starting point, never a verdict.

medium

API pricing is custom-quote only — no public numbers for budgeting.

medium

For-profit funding; check its funding page before assuming neutrality.

low

Mirror domains with bot-check walls exist; verify you're on the real site.

Pros and cons

Pros

  • Free, 100% independent, human-driven ratings per its about page.
  • Rates political bias, factual accuracy, and credibility of news outlets.
  • Used as a lateral-reading tool by a university news-literacy program.
  • Cited in a Nature journal study to classify source political slant.
  • Rated 97/100 by AcademicHelp's fact-checking site review.

Cons

  • Critics say its method is neither rigorous nor peer-reviewed.
  • Accused of left-leaning bias by independent critiques.
  • Weak review base: 2.2/5 SmartCustomer (14), 3.3/5 Trustpilot (4).
  • Operates as a for-profit; funding transparency questioned by watchdogs.

Sources & method

- 12 sources - No known vulnerabilities found in the sources reviewed.

official x3review x5news x4

Key stats

  • Value for money: 5/5

    Rating

  • Free

    Starting price

  • 12

    Sources

  • Analyzed

  • Value for money: 5/5. Free site; API is custom-quoted
  • Ease of use: 4/5. Simple outlet lookup journalists use routinely
  • Feature depth: 3/5. Bias, factuality, credibility ratings plus API; methodology thin
  • Support quality. No support evidence found
  • Security posture. No security evidence in sources
  • 97/100 AcademicHelp score Fact-checking sites review, 2025
  • 3.3/5 Trustpilot 4 reviews
  • 2.2/5 SmartCustomer 14 reviews
  • Free Starting price API is custom-quoted

Pricing

Website access

Free

  • Bias and factuality ratings per outlet
  • Daily vetted fact-check curation
  • Factual news feed

Data API

Not disclosed

  • Direct API access to ratings
  • Contact editor@ for pricing

Security

No known vulnerabilities found in the sources reviewed.

What users say

Opinion is split: some journalists praise its breadth while critics and some reviewers dispute its rigor and neutrality.

“It's not perfect, but IMO there's no close 2nd.”
Reddit, r/Journalism
“I use Media Bias Fact Check very often to check articles and their sources”
Skeptics Meta Stack Exchange
“Mediabiasfactcheck has been repeatedly caught in lies and distortion”
SmartCustomer review

Companies that use it

  • Penn State News Literacy Initiative10
Full analysis

Based on 24 public sources: official pages, review sites, Reddit threads, and academic coverage. Review volumes are small, so sentiment signals are weak.

Free human-run bias ratings for thousands of outlets; a starting point, not a verdict — rigor is disputed.

Methodology

Based on 24 public sources: official pages, review sites, Reddit threads, and academic coverage. Review volumes are small, so sentiment signals are weak.

Read how a report is made.

Sources

  1. About - Media Bias/Fact Checkmediabiasfactcheck.com
    official
  2. MBFC's Data APImediabiasfactcheck.com
    official
  3. Factual News - Media Bias/Fact Checkmediabiasfactcheck.com
    official
  4. Media Bias Fact Check Review 2025 - AcademicHelpacademichelp.net
    review
  5. Trustpilot reviews - mediabiasfactcheck.comtrustpilot.com
    review
  6. SmartCustomer reviews - Media Bias/Fact Checksmartcustomer.com
    review
  7. Reddit r/Journalism - Can I trust Media Bias/Fact Checkreddit.com
    review
  8. Just Facts Daily - Media Bias Fact Check: Incompetent or Dishonest?justfactsdaily.com
    news
  9. Factually.co - MBFC reviewfactually.co
    review
  10. Penn State News Literacy Initiative - MBFC as a Tool for Lateral Readingnewsliteracy.psu.edu
    news
  11. Scientific Reports (Nature) - community fact-checks studynature.com
    news
  12. InfluenceWatch - Media Bias/Fact Check profileinfluencewatch.org
    news

Add this review to your site

This check for Mediabiasfactcheck says Depends.

Put the badge on your site.

Visitors see the independent review.

The link points here, and search engines follow it.

This is the badge visitors see on your site.

Depends Mediabiasfactcheck Independent review on Should I Use It

Paste one snippet. Keep the link as it is. A nofollow tag stops search engines from following it.

Rate this review

Anonymous. You can change your vote.

Loading votes…

Comments

One queue. No nested comments. Give a display name first. Limit: 200 words per comment and 7 comments per day. You can edit or delete yours.

Save a name to write a comment.

0 / 200 words

No comments yet.