CNBC
Bias and Reliability

The first article we will look at is titled, “The Fed issues its latest interest rate decision Wednesday. Here’s what to expect.” Jeff Cox discusses how the Federal Reserve will soon provide an update on whether to cut interest rates and what the possible economic outcome will be. The article has a medium-to-very left-leaning tone and expresses negative sentiments toward Republican officials.

Author Jeff Cox’s selection of quotes suggests a bias against President Trump. The article’s title implies that readers are about to learn how upcoming interest rate cuts may affect them. The negative sentiments toward Trump deviate from the article’s true message and may catch viewers off guard.  Readers may take a second glance at the article and not see CNBC as a trusted source.

Included in the article are 1 negative sentiment towards Republican U.S. Senator Thom Tillis and 4 negative sentiments toward President Donald Trump.

“President Donald Trump for years has been pressing the central bank, and Powell in particular, to cut rates. In an appearance before media members Monday, Trump again lashed out at the chair, saying that Powell should have called a special meeting….What’s a better time to cut interest rates than now? A third-grade student would know that,” Trump said. However, Trump’s own Justice Department is holding up replacing Powell.”

There are slight digs at Trump through the author’s word choices. Some examples include describing Trump as “pressing” the central bank and saying he “lashed out” at Powell, which frames his criticism as combative rather than simply forceful or persistent. The paragraph also spotlights the “third-grade student” remark, a quote that accentuates ridicule and can make Trump appear less serious or measured to readers.

Negative portrayals can influence how readers perceive the article. If readers encounter negative sentiments in the article, they may question the integrity of the information presented.

Beyond the Trump section, the article is largely standard economics and market reporting, but a few phrases still introduce directional framing. Describing the Fed as having “little choice but to stay on the sidelines” while it navigates “complicated and conflicting forces,” and adding that those factors “all but assure” the Fed will “stand pat,” positions a rate hold as near-inevitable. That wording can presuppose and diminish the sense that policymakers are weighing trade-offs and uncertainty, and instead encourages readers to treat the decision as predetermined by circumstances.

The structure also layers risk factors in a way that shapes interpretation: it lists war, inflation, and labor-market signals, then introduces politics as “On top of everything else.” That sequencing positions political pressure as an additional complication on an otherwise technocratic process, which can lead readers to view politics—particularly Trump’s involvement—as uniquely disruptive rather than as one of several typical and ongoing influences on the Fed.

This seems to be a tendency of CNBC’s political coverage. The pieces typically present politics and economics in a neutral, report-first way, but at times rely on loaded verbs and “however” contrasts—like “Trump’s own Justice Department is holding up replacing Powell”—that can read as a subtle negative sentiment or a dig at Republican figures by emphasizing conflict and implied hypocrisy without much procedural context.

Author Jeff Cox remains mostly neutral on social media. Coff reposts his articles and those of his co-workers, and posts his opinion about the latest sports games.

“Recession odds climb on Wall Street as economy shows cracks beneath the surface. The economy last year lost more than half a million jobs excluding health care.”

Recession odds climb on Wall Street as economy shows cracks beneath the surface. The economy last year lost more than half a million jobs excluding health care. https://t.co/EtRBaEwfsx

— Jeff Cox (@JeffCoxCNBCcom) March 25, 2026

Another article titled, “Trump says he thinks he will have the ‘honor’ of ‘taking Cuba’,” is more centered than the article above. Author Garrett Downs explains Trump’s latest position on Cuba. The article doesn’t use any harsh language, and its tone is neutral.

However, there are slight digs at Trump through the author’s word choices. Some examples of the word choices are “He has threatened” and “aggressive foreign policy.” This seems to be a tendency of CNBC’s articles. The pieces typically present politics and economics in a neutral manner, but sometimes contain negative sentiments or digs at Republican lawmakers.

Bias against political figures can significantly affect the article’s perception. It is important for readers to realize that while an article may present information neutrally, negative sentiments toward lawmakers reflect political bias. It is another way that readers’ political opinions can be influenced or misinformed.

Analysis of CNBC Opinion Articles

There are two different forms of reporting: factual and opinion. While CNBC reports on the intersection of politics and the economy, its opinion pieces mostly focus on economics and U.S. and international markets. CNBC’s op-eds focus on Wall Street and commentary on economic trends.

One article that does involve politics is titled, “Soybeans on steroids: Trump’s grand bargain with China?” In this article, Author David Bach criticizes President Trump’s tariff policy, which created a system where China could obtain cheaper soybeans from Argentina, driving business away from American farmers. Bach states that Trump’s economic policies are unpredictable and claims that Trump is implementing these policies for the wrong reasons.

“However, Trump prizes his popularity above all else, and a winning strategy for him could involve imposing early punitive tariffs on Chinese imports and even on imports from Chinese firms operating in neighboring countries such as Mexico.”

Analysis of Reliability in CNBC’s Online News Articles

The first article we will look at is titled, “Senate Democrats send DHS counteroffer to Trump as shutdown drags on.” Reporter Garrett Downs covers the recent counteroffer made by Senate Democrats regarding DHS funding and the partial government shutdown. The article refrains from editorial commentary and gives readers perspectives from both Democrats and Republicans. The article also sticks to quotes and includes no harsh language.

Another article titled “Senate Democrats oppose SAVE America Act ahead of Republican vote” also maintains a neutral tone and no harsh language. The article is also balanced in political perspectives. There is 1 quote from Senate Majority Leader John Thune and President Trump. There are 2 quotes from Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer and 1 quote from the voter-rights organization Democracy Docket, which support the Democrats’ position on the bill.

This helps round out the article and maintain neutrality. The author is able to give readers the full story, including multiple perspectives from lawmakers and a lobbyist who influence the survival of the bill.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

CNBC often uses credible sources from across the political spectrum. However, some articles lean too heavily toward how comprehensively they present opposing viewpoints.

The article we will look at is titled, “DCCC launches digital ad campaign hitting GOP for gas prices.” The article outlines the new digital ad campaign launched by the Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee. The digital ad campaign targets President Donald Trump and Republicans over rising gas prices ahead of the 2026 midterm elections.

This article heavily relies on the perspective of Democrats and has no response from President Trump or Republicans. Readers only see why Democrats are creating this new digital ad. They don’t see any response from a Republican lawmaker or how Republicans are trying to lower gas prices.

Furthermore, there are only three quotes present in the article. All three quotes are long in length, and two of the quotes are biased in language and tone. The quotes take shots at President Trump and Republicans.

“Trump Tariffs. Health Insurance Costs. Gas Prices. ICE Brutality. Reckless War. Republicans have made America much less affordable and significantly more dangerous. How is that Golden Age thingy working out?”

The language and harsh tone in two of the three quotes in the article suggest bias, as the quotes aren’t intended to inform the reader but to present the political opinions of current Democratic lawmakers and officials. This also isn’t the most reliable. Readers aren’t reading unbiased information. Facts and evidence are reliable. The opinion of an elected official can sometimes be skewed toward their specific political party.

The article has 15 linked sources, and of those, 11 are CNBC’s articles. A variety of sources is important in political reporting because it helps readers trust the information they receive. This also helps boost the reliability CNBC.

Variety helps avoid bias and misinformation and builds a well-rounded understanding of the political issue. Furthermore, two of the links embedded from the article provide data that supports the author’s reporting. One article is from CNBC, and the other is from another publication. This boosts CNBC’s reliability. The information provided from those links gives readers accurate information about the economy and the increase in prices.

• The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee
• DCCC Communications Director Courtney Rice
• House Minority Leader Hakeem Jeffries (D)
• The AAA
• S. Energy Secretary Chris Wright
• President Donald Trump (R)

The sourcing is biased toward Democrats. The article is filled mostly with opinions from Democratic leaders. Republicans are given little chance to respond or discuss action plans for decreasing gas prices. As stated earlier, the article only includes three quotes. Those quotes are mostly used to disparage President Donald Trump and Republican legislators.

“Another day, another broken promise from Trump and House Republicans,” DCCC Communications Director Courtney Rice said in a statement. “Now, when voters fill up at the pump, they’ll have yet another reminder that D.C. Republicans are squarely to blame for the price of gas, and everything else, being too damn high.” 

While the article is factually correct, the digs at President Trump and Republicans undermine its reliability. This can make it harder for readers to trust the article’s factual information. Harsh tone and strong language are the first hints of political bias. One article can change the perception of CNBC as a whole. A more neutral tone and a different selection of quotes can increase this article’s reliability and earn readers’ trust.

Selection and Omission Bias

Selection and omission bias are very important in the context of political reporting. Selection bias is story selection, and omission bias is framing a story to fit a certain narrative. We will take a look to see how selection and omission bias may be present in CNBC’s reporting.

In “Investor ban on buying homes stalls housing affordability bill,” reporter Emily Wilkins discussed the problems with the housing affordability bill. While she notes that the bill has bipartisan support, the article focuses only on what Republicans are doing to move it along.

Wilkins doesn’t highlight any efforts by Democrats to help the bill pass. This is omission bias. The reporter is omitting information that would help readers understand that the bill has full government support and that both parties are working to resolve the problems that have arisen from it.

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 CNBC Politically Biased?

CNBC earns a Somewhat Left rating for its AI Bias Score and a Somewhat Left for its Analyst Bias Score. The Analyst Bias Score is generated by reviewers from liberal, moderate, and conservative backgrounds. Analysts reviewed 15 CNBC articles and noted preferences in areas such as coverage of liberal politicians and policy topics like abortion rights and affirmative action. However, the paper maintained objectivity on topics like border control and anti-discrimination laws.

For example, an article titled “As Trump declares inflation tamed, Iran conflict threatens new price pressures” discusses how the recent conflict between the United States and Iran may affect the economy and gas prices. The article mostly maintains a neutral tone, but negative sentiment toward President Donald Trump contributes to its somewhat Liberal bias score.

“Just as President Donald Trump has been insisting that inflation is on the run, the war involving Iran threatens another price spike that could undermine his central case for lower interest rates.”

This one negative sentiment contributed heavily to this article’s bias score. This article illustrates how bias can influence readers’ perception of an article. The negative sentiment present can call the article’s neutrality into question. We will take a look at how other articles by CNBC demonstrate political bias.

How to Evaluate Bias

Although Biasly rates CNBC as Somewhat Left, it’s important to remember that bias can vary from article to article. CNBC also covers a conservative-leaning state with objectivity on many issues, from state legislation to social developments. 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 address this, it’s essential to challenge your assumptions by consulting multiple perspectives and verifying information 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.

So How Does CNBC Fare in Its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly assesses both accuracy and trustworthiness. CNBC 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.

CNBC’s Source Analysis Score is Average at 49% 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 CNBC is Good at 80% Reliable. This further shows how well CNBC supports its claims, addresses selection and omission bias, and presents verifiable evidence.

While CNBC leans toward factual reporting, occasional lapses—such as unbalanced viewpoints or incomplete data—can affect its reliability rating. These nuances emphasize the importance of analyzing individual articles.

CNBC’s Accuracy and Reliability

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

Political orientation plays a crucial role in how audiences perceive reliability. CNBC has been accused of sensationalizing financial information, potentially at the expense of factual reporting. To validate such claims, it’s essential to analyze whether the publication backs its assertions with sufficient evidence and diverse viewpoints.

Two common types of bias that affect factuality include:

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

Biasly’s accuracy ratings use a scale from 1% (least accurate) to 100% (most accurate). Factors include supporting evidence, reliable internal and external sources, and balanced viewpoints.

For instance, Biasly gave Yahoo News a Somewhat Left Bias and an Average Analyst Reliability Score. One Yahoo News article titled, “Senior US counterterrorism official resigns to protest Iran war,” showed below-average reliability sources for the limited opposing sources. Negative sentiments toward President Trump also contribute to the reliability score of the article.

So, is CNBC Reliable?

Overall, CNBC 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.

Coverage and Relevance

CNBC’s reporting often focuses on giving people information about the everyday changes in the market. The economy can be heavily influenced by politics, and CNBC reporting on this topic makes it a compelling case study for how bias influences financial reporting.

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

Who Funds CNBC?

CNBC is funded by its parent company, NBCUniversal. CNBC is under a subsidiary of the Comcast corporation known as Versant Media Group. CNBC generates revenue through advertising and charges high advertising fees due to its audience of investors and business professionals. The organization also generates revenue through distribution fees for cable networks, partnerships, and CNBC pro, a subscription service.

Related Tools and Resource Pages

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

• Media Bias Chart: See where CNBC 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 CNBC and other outlets.
• Media Literacy Education Platform: Learn how to critically assess media sources, bias techniques, and news reliability.