Independent Journal Review
Bias and Reliability

This news media bias manifests in subtle ways, such as placing greater prominence on Republican voices or using emotional diction when describing conservative causes, while offering more detached language in conservative contexts.

Policy and Issue Framing

When covering transgender treatment rights for children 18 and under, Independent Journal Review presents the issues objectively, not outright supporting movements for expanded legal protections or support against. This aligns with a Center or possibly somewhat right media bias, especially in the United States, where transgender treatment for children is a very politically charged issue.

In contrast, issues like climate change and clean energy, typically associated with liberal platforms, may be covered in a more cautious tone. These stories are often contextualized through the lens of their negative impact on the economy or framed as polarizing.

Even in neutral coverage, phrasing choices shape perception. Articles will describe conservative proposals as “protecting individual rights” while liberal legislation may be described as “negative”. This consistent choice of words reflects an editorial direction that, even unintentionally, can contribute to bias in news media.

Coverage and Relevance

Independent Journal Review’s reporting often touches on key issues central to the media political bias discussion, including newspaper bias, bias in journalism, and biased media narratives. As such, it serves as a compelling case study for examining source bias and news media bias in US-focused reporting.

Readers who wish to further explore how Independent Journal Review compares with other publications can visit Biasly’s Media Bias Chart to analyze tone and word choice in real time.

How Does Biasly Rate News Sources?

Biasly uses proprietary algorithms and a team of analysts to provide comprehensive bias evaluations across thousands of news outlets. Over 200,000 articles from more than 3,200 sources have been analyzed to identify the most accurate and unbiased stories.

Biasly assigns each outlet three key scores:

• Reliability Score – Reflects factual accuracy
• AI Bias Score – Generated via natural language processing
• Analyst Bias Score – Assessed by human political analysts

These scores are based on seven core metrics: Tone, Tendency, Diction, Author Check, Selection/Omission, Expediency Bias, and Accuracy. These elements help analysts and algorithms evaluate the political attitude conveyed by each article.

Biasly’s Bias Meter ranges from -100% (most left) to +100% (most right), with 0% indicating neutrality. The system evaluates individual articles based on political terms, policies, figures, and sentiment to calculate precise bias ratings.

Is Independent Journal Review Politically Biased?

Independent Journal Review earns a Somewhat Right rating for its AI Bias Score and a Center for its Analyst Bias Score. The Analyst Bias Score is generated by reviewers from liberal, moderate, and conservative backgrounds. Analysts reviewed 15 Independent Journal Review articles and noted preferences in areas like coverage of conservative politicians and policy topics such as supporting the actions of the Trump administration. However, the paper maintained objectivity on topics like education and national security. Independent Journal Review.com is a relatively new media source, only coming into being in 2012. Despite being young, the Independent Journal Review has been praised by different sources and organizations, including the Trust Project and Santa Clara University.

For example, articles involving the recent capture of Venezuelan President Nicholas Maduro contributed significantly to the conservative score, with a Somewhat Right bias.

The United States’ demography presents a contrasting backdrop, with a mixture of liberals and conservatives. Pew Research shows that there are large groups of Republicans in the United States who support the Trump administration polices, especially immigration, as well as liberals who are against them. Though Independent Journal Review leans conservative, the survey shows that the political background of the US does not totally align with the news site’s stance, which could explain differing perceptions of Independent Journal Review’s content. The paper may draw mixed reactions depending on readers’ political orientations.

This Bias score is determined through natural language processing that evaluates the tone, word choice, and opinion embedded in the reporting. Recent AI evaluations highlight liberal-leaning narratives.

Analysis of Bias in Independent Journal Review Online Articles

When determining bias, some of the most common metrics used include Tone, Author, and Diction, which are the primary metrics we’ll focus on below. Tone refers to the attitude of the writing and is related to but distinct from diction, which is the writer’s word choices. The Author metric refers to the author of the article and his or her demonstrated stance on issues through past articles and social media posts.

The first article we will examine is “Kari Lake Shares Whether She Is ‘Entertaining’ Running for Senate in 2024”. Biasly has rated this article as “Very Right” on the bias meter. Part of the reason for this rating is that even though the author, Bradley Cortright,  tried to maintain neutrality, the tone suggests that he has negative views about Kari Lake.

The tone is made clear from the beginning when the author says:

“Failed Arizona gubernatorial candidate Kari Lake may be considering running for office again. “

An underestimation is visible in that statement, as Kari Lake cannot win the presidency since she could not win before. Once he covers Lake’s view about running for the office again, the author then uses the following sentences:

“She would either have to admit she lost the election fair and square, or look like a fraud and a sore loser. Or she will have to come up with some way to explain why they can trust their votes will matter this time.”

Even though the diction of the article is not extreme, it criticizes Kari Lake and her attitude now and in the past about the election. For example, the author uses the word “failed” to refer to the previous election loss.

In the article, the author does not refrain from gathering quotes from conservatives who are not in favor of Kari Lake’s running for office. For instance, conservative commentator Charlie Kirk says that some conservatives are “clamoring” about Lake’s run for Senate. The author excludes positive perspectives on Lake. The only positive sentiment about Lake is when the author says:

“As a candidate, she had charisma and seemed to capture some of the energy former President Donald Trump brought to the campaign trail. She was also excellent at creating viral moments on social media of her dealing with the press.”

This quote contributes to the neutrality, despite negative sentiments throughout the article.

To sum up, the author strives for objectivity for the most part and provides select perspectives from sources that don’t favor Kari Lake’s candidacy, but he ultimately spins the story to support one side. All of this suggests that, while some elements of this article were neutral, the article was found to be right-leaning overall, which aligns with our analysis of the Independent Journal Review as a company with a tendency to lean right in its biases.

Although this article falls on the right end of the spectrum, article bias can differ between articles and authors, even when they come from the same organization. This shows the importance of looking for the signs of bias, including (but not limited to) tone, diction, author, and omission bias, in any article you come across.

Another article, labeled as a Commentary piece, is entitled “Manchin Reportedly Proposed Slashing Dems’ Spending Package by $2 Trillion in July.” Biasly’s A.I. rating is “center,” and the author refrains from emotionally loaded language or words that can affect the readers. The article informs the readers and displays the facts objectively by avoiding personal opinions:

“Additionally, the West Virginia senator proposed raising the corporate tax rate to 25%, the top income rate to 39.6%, and the capital gains rate to 28%. It also said that any revenue “exceeding $1.5 trillion” would be used for “deficit reduction.”

The article shows a good example of an unbiased piece. Even in the title, it is visible that the author will provide objective facts from a non-partisan view.

The author of this piece, Bradley Cotright, tends to lean left in his social media presence. A recent post shows him making a joke out of a misleading image posted by Fox News. However, the article takes a non-partisan stance, and he writes objectively, showing that his personal views are separate from the work he produces for Independent Journal Review. Here are a couple of examples:

Either my phone is tweaking or Fox’s app is having a struggle today with its images on its push notifications pic.twitter.com/8QnWc2LAU5

— Bradley Cortright 🇺🇸 (@bradmcortright) December 16, 2025

Trump: “A friend of mine who’s a very smart guy, very very rich, very powerful man actually. But he’s very fat. And he took the fat drug. I won’t give you which one. It was Ozempic … the drug doesn’t work on him. I saw him recently. He’s actually fatter than ever.” pic.twitter.com/hhMjfP9dj8

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 16, 2026

Analysis of Independent Journal Review Opinion Articles

Before we answer this question, we need to distinguish between opinion and reporting. While reporting is intended to be neutral, giving the reader the facts and quotes from primary sources to let them form their own opinion, opinions are an outlet for columnists to express their personal views on the issues of the day. While we saw elements of factual reporting in the analysis above, the Independent Journal Review opinion pieces don’t seek objectivity but prioritize putting forth an opinion instead.

Consider the opinion article “Biden Earns New Nickname for How Terrible of a Liar He Is”

The title is loaded with conservative bias because it contains strong language and negative opinions about Biden’s intentions or actions. The word “liar” has a strong implication, and in this context, it is used directly to influence the reader’s opinion before they read the article. Throughout the article, an unfavorable view of Biden is visible:

“It’s certainly not an inapt moniker. Biden has long been an out-and-out liar, but the establishment media have tended to cover for him in various ways.”

Throughout the article, the author does not refrain from using harsh words, which can damage the objectivity and neutrality of the article. Despite some objective facts in the article, the apparent bias in the title and judgmental language imply that the author does not intend to provide a fair and objective reporting of the facts.

Nevertheless, the article “White House Announces Biden Will Veto GOP Bill That Includes Military Pay Raise If It Passes” has an objective title that aims to inform the reader about the issue. In the title, the author avoids using emotional sentiments or words that can direct the readers to a political agenda. Reliable articles marked by neutral language and facts from credible sources. Based on the title alone, it could be safely assumed that this article would be less biased than the previous one.

These articles, in addition to those above, are only a small representation of all of the Independent Journal Review content, but they indicate that the outlet is often characterized by a great deal of opinion, further underscoring the importance of knowing how to distinguish subjective writing from genuine reporting.

How to Evaluate Bias

Although Biasly rates Independent Journal Review as Somewhat Right, it’s important to remember that bias can vary from article to article. Independent Journal Review tends to favor conservative politicians, but does maintain objectivity on topics such as legislation regarding the prevention of insider trading, for example. This complexity underscores the importance of examining each article individually. So, let’s learn how to evaluate media bias.

Recognizing media bias requires awareness and critical thinking. Often, readers trust news sources that affirm their existing beliefs—a psychological tendency known as confirmation bias. This makes it harder to identify slanted narratives or one-sided reporting.

To combat this, it’s essential to challenge your assumptions by consulting multiple viewpoints and verifying news through third-party analysis. Tools like Biasly’s media bias ratings allow readers to compare the same news story across the political spectrum.

Ultimately, bias isn’t always a matter of what is said—it’s also about what is left out, how topics are framed, and which stories are chosen for coverage. Learning to recognize these patterns can help readers make more informed decisions and develop greater media literacy.

To start comparing news outlets and gain a better understanding of bias, sign up for Biasly’s Media Bias & News Analytics Platform to see how stories vary between sources.

Further investigation is needed to determine whether bias or other factors are affecting its accuracy. At Biasly, we specialize in evaluating not just bias but also the reliability of media outlets. Let’s explore the accuracy and trustworthiness of Independent Journal Review.

How to Evaluate Reliability?

Reliability refers to how trustworthy or accurate a news source is. If we can’t trust what we read, then continuing to consume content from that outlet serves little purpose. So how do we evaluate a news outlet’s reliability?

There are several potential measures of reliability to look out for when trying to determine whether a media source is reliable or not. Red flags for an unreliable article can include the presence of wild, unsubstantiated claims, facts dependent on other unreliable sources, heavy use of opinionated language, and more. In contrast, hallmarks of a reliable source include:

• Absence of subjective language
• Citing credible sources (e.g., .gov, .edu, academic references)
• Verifiable facts and statistics from multiple outlets
• Use of primary sources, like interviews or transcripts
• Consistency with coverage across other platforms

Biasly’s reliability scores incorporate these elements in evaluating media outlets.

So How Does Independent Journal Review Fare in Its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly assesses both accuracy and trustworthiness. Independent Journal Review currently holds Good Reliability Score, which is calculated as a weighted average of:

• Fact Analysis Score – Evaluates the accuracy of claims, facts, and evidence.
• Source Analysis Score – Assesses the number, diversity, and credibility of sources and quotes used.

Independent Journal Review’s Source Analysis Score is Average at 60% Reliable. This suggests moderate trustworthiness in its sourcing practices. The score is AI-generated and considers quote length, frequency, diversity, and quality.

The Fact Analysis Score of Independent Journal Review is Excellent at 94% Reliable. This further shows how well Independent Journal Review supports its claims, addresses selection and omission bias, and presents verifiable evidence.

While Independent Journal Review leans toward factual reporting, occasional lapses, such as unbalanced viewpoints or incomplete data, and its tendency to favor center-conservative media biases can affect its reliability rating. These nuances emphasize the importance of analyzing individual articles.

Independent Journal Review’s Accuracy and Reliability

According to Biasly’s analysis, Independent Journal Review maintains Good Reliability Score, but individual articles may vary significantly. Let’s dive into the details.

The credibility of news organizations is significantly impacted by bias and political orientation. Based on assessments, Independent Journal Review has been regarded as a right/conservative media source.

• Selection Bias – Highlighting or omitting stories to fit a particular narrative.
• Omission Bias – Leaving out differing perspectives or relevant details to skew perception.

Biasly assigns a percentage score to accuracy, with one being the least accurate and 100 being the most. Ratings are calculated by weighing assertions with supporting evidence, the number of reliable internal sources, and the number of reliable external sources employed. A full page at Biasly’s website includes dependability and accuracy ratings for newly released Independent Journal Review news stories.

As previously stated, according to the reports, analytics have assessed that Independent Journal Review is generally Excellent in its reliability rating. Consider also ABC News, which has a somewhat liberal bias and has only a Good reliability rating, according to Biasly. For example, they had an article that was rated with an ‘Excellent’ Fact Analyst Score titled “House passes anti-Asian hate crimes bill, legislation awaits Biden’s signature,” and another article called, “Biden calls new GOP-passed Georgia law restricting voting access an ‘atrocity’” that had only a ‘Fair’ Source Analysis Score. As a result, stories displaying political leanings are less reliable than neutral ones.

For example, the Independent Journal Review article titled “Joe Biden Gets Major Fact Check After Public Outcry” is rated at Center. Regarding selection and omission bias, the author, George C. Upper III, provided a satisfactory response to Joe Biden’s claim. However, he failed to interview a labor union to gather their perspective on Joe Biden’s attitude. Additionally, to illustrate the public outcry, the author relies on some posts from the platform X, which may be insufficient to support his claim. One of his sources, Politico, reported on Biden:

“even deployed two Cabinet members — Labor Secretary Marty Walsh and Transportation Secretary Pete Buttigieg — on Thursday to sell Senate Democrats on voting to prevent a work stoppage and impose the rail deal minus the sick leave workers wanted.”

The article displays a stance at the center due to sources used, though it portrays Biden as anti-union, which is compatible with many of Independent Journal Review’s news articles. The author would be more comprehensive if he included interviews or labor union comments. For that reason, the article can be considered mostly reliable.

In order to assess the credibility of Independent Journal Review’s articles, we will review more examples like this below and provide a further investigation. This will include its use of selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of its sources and facts used.

Analysis of Reliability in Independent Journal Review’s Online News Articles

Independent Journal Review aims to serve mainly Americans with objective, fact-based reporting. Its staff includes writers from varying ideological and geographic backgrounds, which can help balance coverage. However, readers should distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces to evaluate credibility effectively.

One notable example is the article titled “Person Made Hundreds Of Thousands Betting On Maduro Capture, Spurring Congressional Crackdown.” The Daily Caller News Foundation covered the amount of major bets and insider trading that occurred surrounding Venezuelan President Maduro’s capture. It also objectively discusses the possible new legislation to prevent these types of bets from occurring. Overall, the article refrains from editorial commentary, sticking to quotes and fact-based language. Following Independent Journal Review’s Somewhat Right rating, this piece illustrates factual neutrality.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

Independent Journal Review often uses different sources in its articles; however, it is crucial to be aware of the quality and credibility of those sources. For example, in the article titled “House Republicans Move to Repeal Law That Biden’s DOJ Has ‘Weaponized’ to Imprison Pro-Lifers, The author Jack Davis used only 11 quotes. Of those 11 quotes, six of them are short, four of them are medium-length, and one is a long quote.

Additionally, the author’s 10 sources for the article were as follows:

• Code Freedom of access to clinic entrances
• A bill introduced by Rep. Chip Roy (Republican)
• House Rep. Chip Roy of Texas (Republican)
• The Daily Signal Article (Conservative-leaning)
• Office of Public Affairs
• An X account called CannCon
• A letter by Rep. Chip Roy (Republican)
• An X account, Ryan Matthew Neuhaus
• Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at CatholicVote
• Andrew Bath, general counsel for the conservative legal firm

The quality of the sources looks mixed, but the main problem arises from the inclusion of social media accounts and non-experts on the issue, which reduces the reliability of their quotes. Moreover, most of the quotes come from Republican Rep. Chip Roy, with the rest being negative personal opinions of people. While the article is rated as center-right, the author’s bias towards right-wing sources is evident, and the overall source quality is average. More alternative views could have strengthened the piece.

The author, Jack Davis, relies heavily on right-wing sources such as Republican Rep. Chip Roy of Texas and Tom McClusky, director of government affairs at CatholicVote. The author quotes a lot and provides key information to guide readers’ perspectives. Consequently,  although this article is rated at the center, it is still a controversial source about the law used to jail pro-life activists.

The article from above, “Commentary: Trump Used Walls To Stop Border Sex Predators, Harris Wants To Use Coffee,” is an example of a good informative piece with qualified sources and quotes, despite the right-wing tendency throughout the article. The author incorporates various news sources, such as The Wall Street Journal and NBC, along with statistical sources like the World Population Review. The only problem with the article is that the author uses the Western journal as a source many times, which can affect the article’s reliability.

Selection and Omission Bias

In another example from Independent Journal Review, it is evident that the author tends to support the right wing, though he strives for objectivity. The article titled “‘Lose That Idea’: Data Reporter Shoots Down Notion Trump Cannot Win in 2024″ by Bradley Cortright primarily discusses the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 elections, but lacks information about why he might be re-elected and why Joe Biden may struggle to win. Also, the quotes only come from one source, a CNN senior data reporter. The total number of quotes is only four, with two being short and two being medium-length. Here is a quote from the CNN reporter:

“This idea that Donald Trump can’t win the general election, I want you to lose that idea. This race is very, very close, and Donald Trump is polling better right now than basically at any point during the entire 2020 cycle,”

The article mentions the possibility of Trump winning the 2024 election, but does not provide a comprehensive explanation for this assertion. Relying on a single source to support this argument is insufficient. Additionally, the article lacks an examination of why Joe Biden might face challenges in winning against Trump. The title of the article implies a focus on right-wing opinions about the 2024 presidential election, but it does not deliver on this promise.

In the article discussed earlier, “House Republicans Move to Repeal Law That Biden’s DOJ Has ‘Weaponized’ to Imprison Pro-Lifers,” the author omits the comments or views from left-wing or Democratic Party and arranges the title for the ideologies of the right. The author does not consider the alternative views and displays the issue from only one view, which diminishes the article’s credibility.

Moreover, none of the sources has opposite views, and all have conservative stances. The quote by Andrew Bath, “The FACE Act has been weaponized by this administration,” can be seen as portraying the Biden administration unfavorably with strong diction without any alternative perspectives, indicating selection and omission bias. Because of all this, the author weakens the article’s trustworthiness and makes news like this look like opinion articles

In opinion pieces, issues with factuality, sources, selection, and omission are frequently present. The articles we’ve covered so far are mostly biased and exclude adequate relevant background and information that may contradict the author’s position. As a news organization with a central stand, Independent Journal Review has a small incentive to continue appealing to conservative viewpoints to maintain the interests of its sizable right-wing readership. But now that we’ve enumerated typical trustworthiness indications, you may stay current by keeping yourself informed on the most accurate news.

So, is Independent Journal Review Reliable?

Overall, Independent Journal Review can be considered to be an outlet that is very reliable. It demonstrates a consistent goal of journalistic integrity and typically supports claims with sources and quotes. Occasional omissions and framing bias do appear, particularly on culturally sensitive or partisan issues.

As media literacy improves, readers can more easily detect issues with selection bias, omission bias, and factuality. To strengthen your ability to assess reliability across the political spectrum, use Biasly’s News Bias Checker to compare how multiple outlets report the same story.

This empowers you to consume more accurate, balanced, and dependable news

Though Independent Journal Review is for profit, their commitment to representing center-conservatives may provide added reassurance to readers seeking a news outlet that values independence and editorial integrity.

Who Funds Independent Journal Review?

Independent Journal Review is owned and operated by Next Fund as of January 2021. The outlet is a for-profit model funded by mostly private investors. The CEO, Alex Statell, also founded the outlet and invested personal finances. Its funding now comes primarily from private investors, philanthropic foundations, corporate sponsorships, and advertising sales, as it does not offer a typical reader subscription option.

In practice, Independent Journal Review states its commitment to truthful and nonpartisan reporting; nevertheless, as with any outlet, funding sources and leadership priorities can shape newsroom incentives over time and should be monitored by readers.

Other contributors focus on Donald Trump, the Russo-Ukrainian war, or the crisis in Palestine, topics central to the United States. While some contributors may be seen as leaning right in tone or topic selection, their work is mostly grounded in factual reporting. The presence of recurring bylines helps readers evaluate individual journalists’ bias over time.

Related Tools and Resource Pages

To better understand how Independent Journal Review fits into the broader media landscape, we recommend exploring these helpful resources:

• Media Bias Chart: See where Independent Journal Review ranks among hundreds of media outlets across the political spectrum.
• Political Bias Chart: Visualize political slants of news sources across various policy areas.
• Journalist Bias Analytics Platform: Explore how individual journalists contribute to bias within their publications.
• Politician Bias Analytics Platform: Compare how politicians are framed differently by Independent Journal Review and other outlets.
• Media Literacy Education Platform: Learn how to critically assess media sources, bias techniques, and news reliability.