Fox News
Bias and Reliability

Policy and Issue Framing

When covering immigration, Fox News often references less government intervention and stricter laws, supporting movements for expanded legal regulations. This aligns with a Medium Right media bias, especially with its current audience, which leans significantly to the right. Similarly, coverage of issues like the ‘Black Lives Matter’ or ‘No Kings’ protests is very negative, criticizing the protesters and refuting their points in articles.

In contrast, issues like LGBTQ+ rights, environmental regulations, or heavier taxation policies, are covered in a harsher or critical tone. These stories are often contextualized through the lens of conservative narratives or framed as polarizing.

Even in neutral coverage, phrasing choices shape perception. Articles will describe conservative proposals as “a return to normalcy” or “strengthening the rule of law,” while liberal legislation may be described as “useless” or “unnecessary”. This consistent choice of words reflects an editorial direction that can contribute to bias in news media.

Coverage and Relevance

Fox News’s reporting often touches on key issues central to the media political bias discussion. These include divisive political topics, issues within the current and prior administrations, and biased media narratives. As such, it serves as a compelling case study for examining source bias and news media bias in United States-focused reporting.

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

As a leading media outlet in the United States, Fox News plays a significant role in shaping public perception. Readers’ trust in the accuracy of their coverage may mirror the conclusions reached by Biasly’s media bias ratings. This article delves into Fox News’s editorial tendencies to explore whether political bias is present and, if so, to what degree.

Is Fox News Biased?

Based on Biasly’s evaluations, Fox News is rated as Very Right.

By examining content patterns and the broader context of media influence, we aim to offer a balanced perspective on Fox News’s political bias—and contribute to the ongoing discussion about bias in the news.

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 Fox News Politically Biased?

Fox News earns a Very Right rating for its AI Bias Score and a Somewhat Right for its Analyst Bias Score. The Analyst Bias Score is generated by reviewers from liberal, moderate, and conservative backgrounds. Analysts reviewed Fox News articles and noted preferences in areas like coverage of conservative politicians and policy topics such as border control. However, the paper maintained objectivity on topics like anti-discrimination laws, a topic which Biasly has rated as Center on Fox News’s page.

Fox News’s readership agrees with this stance, as most align with the Republican Party. Pew Research shows that Republicans are more likely to trust Fox News as a valid source than Democrats are.

This means that their main audience is rather conservative, which could explain differing perceptions of Fox News’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 right-leaning narratives in articles discussing the Democratic Party and LGBTQ+ issues.

Analysis of Bias in Fox News Online Articles

Fox News covers the United States’ current political climate through a conservative lens. It has been found that this is one of the most effective ways to drive subscriptions. Given that much of its readership is conservatively aligned, it’s essential to ask: is Fox News truly biased?

To evaluate this, we can analyze select Fox News articles through several of Biasly’s bias rating criteria: Tone, Tendency, Author, Diction, and Expediency Bias.

• Tone: The overall attitude conveyed by the article
• Diction: Specific word choices made by the writer
• Author: The background and social presence of the journalist
• Tendency: Patterns of bias in the writer’s broader body of work
• Expediency Bias: Quick visual or textual indicators like headlines and photos that imply bias

Source: Fox News

One such article features a headline that draws a correlation between New Hampshire’s Republican Governor Kelly Ayotte and the newly elected Democratic NYC mayor, Zohran Mamdani. Two photos are placed side by side, with the headline “Escape the ‘Regime’” beneath them. This implies dissatisfaction with Mamdani’s win. The article begins by explaining what Governor Ayotte had said, and the truck that she sent into NYC.

Reporter Preston Mizell outlines the situation with quotes from Governor Ayotte. For instance, her slogan, printed on the truck she sent into NYC, is shown in photos and in the text. Quotes from Governor Ayotte herself are also used frequently, as she agreed to speak directly to Fox News. While this lends weight to the article, it lacks differing perspectives, as quotes from Mayor Mamdani are not used.

“New Hampshire has a lot to offer anyone who is looking to leave NYC ahead of the Mamdani regime,” Ayotte told Fox News Digital. “We are the safest state in the nation, the best for economic opportunity, and we have some of the lowest taxes anywhere. Whether you own a business or just want to keep more of your hard-earned money — come on up to the Granite State. We’d love to have you!”

The article leans conservative in its portrayal of Governor Ayotte as being correct in urging citizens to ‘escape’ from Mamdani’s government. By linking her to Mamdani’s upcoming rule, the author aligns the narrative with right-leaning ideals. These are ideals such as less government intervention in people’s lives. This framing subtly situates the subjects within a conservative ideological lens, further underscoring the article’s ideological slant.

On the other hand, another article titled “Hamas turns over body said to be Israeli soldier Hadar Goldin, killed and taken in 2014” is far more balanced. It lays out the facts without editorializing. Phrases and diction like “announced” and “expected to return” reinforce neutrality. Potentially divisive issues are presented factually, such as in this quote:

“Netanyahu’s office announced Sunday that Israel received a coffin from the Red Cross inside the Gaza Strip. His office said the remains still have to undergo an official identification process by the Health Ministry National Center of Forensic Medicine, after which, the family will receive notification.”

The article employs diction and language that are notably restrained and formal, contributing to its overall neutral tone. Terms like “reported” and “notified” are informative but measured, conveying the dynamics of the return of remains while being respectful toward the families. The author also avoids emotionally charged words or loaded phrases often seen in more partisan outlets. Instead of framing the return as something political, he keeps an even-handed tone throughout the entire article.

Stephen Sorace’s activity on X appears largely professional and centered on sharing his reporting for Fox News Digital. His posts primarily consist of links to news articles covering politics, business, and breaking news events, with little visible personal commentary or ideological messaging. Based on his social media feed, Sorace maintains a neutral and reporter-focused presence, using the platform mainly to distribute his published stories rather than express explicit political opinions.

Trump unfurls plans for double 100-foot flagpoles during White House lawn walkhttps://t.co/pYjiEBeeLU

— Stephen Sorace (@SteveReporting) April 23, 2025

Let’s look at another example of a Fox News online article on efforts to pass the Equal Rights Amendment:

If we look at Biasly’s breakdown of this article’s bias, we can see right off the bat that it was given a rating of 66%, making it very conservative. If we look further into Biasly’s analysis, we can see that the policy leaning of this article was also designated as very conservative, with a rating of 77%, and that its portrayal of politicians mentioned in the article had negative sentiment, with a rating of -54%.

Moving on to the article itself, we can identify almost immediately through the language used that the author has a bias. Look at the following statement:

“Thirty-eight states had to ratify the ERA by 1979. It didn’t happen. Supporters are still trying to bend the rules to ensure its passage decades later.”

The use of the phrase “bend the rules” in reference to the actions taken by those in support of passing the ERA to the Constitution suggests a bias against the ERA. The implication is that not only was the ERA a bad amendment that one would need to bend the rules to pass, but that those in support of the ERA are willing to act unethically by bending the rules to get what they want. No factual evidence was provided that shows that the ERA was ratified by bending the rules to support this claim.

Instead of citing a specific bending or violating of a legal or constitutional framework for amendment ratification, the article relied on quotes from those who believed the ERA should be tabled. This includes quotes from Senator Ted Cruz and former Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg. However, while these quotes support the main point of the article, that the ERA should be abandoned, they do nothing to prove whether or not supporters of the ERA have bent the rules to keep it alive. Phrasings like this are used continuously throughout the article to create a negative picture of the amendment and its supporters, who, in general, are more liberal.

We can see another instance of negative language being used to describe supporters of the ERA in the following passage:

“But in a the-rules-don’t-apply-to-me kind of mindset, ERA activists ignored the facts, pushing its ratification far beyond its shelf life.”

ERA activists here are referred to as arrogant, ignorant of the facts, and as chaining themselves to a lost cause.  The sentiment is negative against the ERA and its supporters.

Our analysis also analyzed and picked apart the sentiments present within this article. These sentiments were found to be largely conservative-leaning. Overall, 5 negative sentiments towards abortion, and 1 negative sentiment towards Planned Parenthood were found, as well a single positive sentiment towards abortion and a single negative sentiment towards religious freedom. Sentiments towards politicians were largely negative, with Ted Cruz and Alex Padilla having the only positive sentiments.

To sum it up, Fox News shows inconsistent bias across its reporting. While the Hadar Goldin article maintains neutrality through balanced presentation and restrained language, the Mamdani article reveals a conservative slant by framing Governor Ayotte in a positive light, agreeing with her actions as correct. Despite attempts at balance in some reporting, Fox News’s tendency to highlight conservative initiatives and frame Democrats in a negative lens indicates an overall right-leaning orientation. It is particularly evident when covering the current political climate in the United States.

Analysis of Fox News Opinion Articles

To fully understand political bias in media, it’s important to distinguish between factual reporting and opinion pieces. While reporting aims to present facts and let readers form their own conclusions, opinion articles express personal viewpoints on current issues. Although the previous section examined factual reporting, this section turns to how bias surfaces through Fox News’s selection and tone of opinion content.

One prominent example is the article titled “What can a former KGB agent teach us about what’s in store for America?”. The title itself is not indicative of any particular orientation, but the article reveals itself to be anti-Mamdani in the introduction. It implies dissatisfaction with NYC’s political status, especially now under Mamdani. It uses Soviet defector Yuri Bezemov’s interview from 1984 to make its points. This may suggest that the author prioritizes persuasion over balanced information delivery.

In contrast, another opinion piece titled “Democrats hold government hostage over subsidies Americans don’t want” employs slightly more centrist language. Its title leans to the right by expressing dissatisfaction with the Democrats in relation to the shutdown. However, while the article itself contains opinionated writing, it remains rooted in verifiable facts that can be cross-referenced by the audience.

These examples show that while not all Fox News opinion pieces are overtly conservative, the platform frequently publishes content that aligns with conservative party stances. This consistent selection of opinion pieces can contribute to perceptions of systemic bias—particularly when the editorials predominantly support conservative views or causes.

This tendency underscores the importance of distinguishing subjective viewpoints from straight reporting, especially when interpreting the political leanings of any news organization.

Analysis of Fox News Talk Shows

With this in mind, let’s take a look at what Fox News is most well-known for, their talk shows. We’ll do this by examining an episode of Tucker Carlson Tonight focused on the Biden administration’s response to those questioning the possibility of a recession. We’ll do this using this transcript of Tucker Carlson tonight, which was published on December 20, 2022.

Some key characteristics of bias in the piece involve telling one side of the story, direct and negative responses towards policies promoted by the Biden administration, and omitting inconvenient facts.

Let’s take the second paragraph of the piece, for example. The following contextualizes the Biden Administration’s messaging leading up to the midterm election.

“The US economy had just recorded two consecutive quarters of declining GDP. That’s not just an academic observation. That’s a technical definition of a recession. Two quarters. Declining GDP. Recession. We’re not making that up. You’ll find it in every economics textbook ever written. Go look up the one you used in college. But the Biden administration could not admit that. If they admitted that the US was in a recession, they would lose the Senate. They would lose control of both chambers of Congress. So they had to lie about it.”

An interesting note about this paragraph is that it is true for Quarters 1 & 2, but is not true for Quarter 3, which ended close to the midterm elections. The following graph (figure 1.1) demonstrates the two quarters in which Tucker’s statement was true and the most recent quarter. Since Tucker’s segment occurred well after Quarter 3 ended, the fact that he does not include an inconvenient piece of information is an example of bias.

Figure 1.1

The final statement claiming that the Biden Administration lied in order to win the Senate is another example of very strong language that negatively represents the actions taken by Biden and attributes malice to the administration’s actions. A fairer way of phrasing the Biden administration’s actions would focus more specifically on the change in how they are measuring the economy.

Tucker Carlson was correct about Biden’s incorrect claims of adding one million new jobs, which were disproved by the Pennsylvania federal report that he mentions here:

“And now we get to learn the truth. A million new jobs, really? The Philadelphia Fed decided to check those numbers and they found the US economy did not add more than a million jobs in the second quarter of this year. Instead, the net additional jobs was about 10,000.”

We mention this to illustrate how segments that do include bias can also include factual statements. It is important to recognize that when external research and sources are reported on, they are almost always factual statements.

How to Evaluate Bias

Although Biasly rates Fox News as Very Right, it’s important to remember that bias can vary from article to article. Fox News also caters to a conservative audience with a focus on many issues, from national 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 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.

So How Does Fox News Fare in Its Reliability?

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

Fox News’s Source Analysis Score is Average at 45% 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 Fox News is Good at 81% Reliable. This further shows how well Fox News supports its claims, addresses selection and omission bias, and presents verifiable evidence.

While Fox News leans toward factual reporting, occasional lapses can affect its reliability rating. These nuances emphasize the importance of analyzing individual articles.

Fox News’s Accuracy and Reliability

According to Biasly’s analysis, Fox News 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. Fox News has been accused of favoring a conservative narrative, 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 the presence of supporting evidence, internal and external reliable sources, and balanced viewpoints.

For instance, Biasly gave Business Insider a Medium Left Bias and a Good Analyst Reliability Score. One Business Insider article, titled “How the USDA is responding in court to SNAP cuts after Trump cutoff threat”, showed an Average reliability rating. This was for failing to include multiple sources and for lacking opposing perspectives. Critical language towards Donald Trump was a common theme within the article. Reporter Amanda Goh also failed to complement her selection of liberal opinions with views belonging to any other school of thought. In contrast, another piece from the outlet, titled “Breaking China’s rare earth dominance could take a decade, Goldman Sachs says”, was rated as Center and scored Average for accuracy. There is little to no biased language within this article, and all the facts are presented with numbers and evidence to back them up. An example of such writing can be seen in the following quote:

“He pointed out that roughly 92% of global rare-earth refining and 98% of the magnets made from those materials take place in China. That gives Beijing enormous leverage in trade disputes and making the market highly sensitive to policy headlines.”

We will take a closer look at more examples like this below to provide a further investigation into the reliability of Fox News’s articles. This will include its use of selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of its sources and the facts it uses.

Analysis of Reliability in Fox News’s Online News Articles

Fox News aims to serve Americans with news through a conservative lens. Many of its staff writers share this perspective and are often ideologically on the right. Therefore, readers must distinguish between news reporting and opinion pieces to evaluate credibility effectively.

One example is the article titled “Trump pardons Rudy Giuliani, Mark Meadows, Sidney Powell, and others involved in 2020 election interference saga”. Reporter Elizabeth Pritchett covered Donald Trump’s pardons and provided an explanation about some of the main people involved. The article refrains from editorial commentary, sticking to quotes and fact-based language. Despite Fox News’s Very Right rating, this piece illustrates factual neutrality.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

Fox News often uses credible sources from across the political spectrum. However, some articles skew in how comprehensively they present opposing viewpoints.

Let’s have another look at the article on Donald Trump’s pardons. The article contains 5 direct quotes in quotation marks (counting partial quotes): “full, complete and unconditional” (4 words), “to all United States citizens for conduct relating to the advice, creation, organization, execution, submission, support, voting, activities, participation in, or advocacy for or of any slate or proposed slate of Presidential electors, whether or not recognized by any State or State official, in connection with the 2020 Presidential Election, as well for any conduct relating to their efforts to expose voting fraud and vulnerabilities in the 2020 Presidential Election.” (70 words), “not limited to” (3 words), “No MAGA left behind.” (4 words), and “This proclamation ends a grave national injustice perpetrated upon the American people following the 2020 Presidential Election and continues the process of national reconciliation.” (24 words).

The shortest quote is 3 words, the longest quote is 70 words, and the average quote length is approximately 21 words.

Because the article includes a full excerpt from the proclamation itself, it relies partly on primary source language rather than short soundbites. This approach can increase transparency by showing readers the exact wording of the policy announcement, although the overall number of quoted voices remains limited.

On linked sources, the article contains an embedded tweet referencing the proclamation. The link functions primarily as supporting evidence from the official social media post rather than an external reporting source.

Sources referenced:

• Elizabeth Pritchett — Fox News journalist and article author (Right-leaning outlet affiliation)
• Fox News — news outlet/publisher (Right)
• Donald Trump — President referenced as issuing the pardons (Right)
• Ed Martin — U.S. Pardon Attorney announcing the pardons (Right)
• Rudy Giuliani — former Trump attorney referenced among those pardoned (Right)
• Mark Meadows — former White House Chief of Staff referenced among those pardoned (Right)
• Sidney Powell — attorney involved in post-election legal challenges (Right)
  2020 Presidential Election — political event referenced throughout (Institutional reference)
• Slate of Presidential Electors — election process referenced in the proclamation (Institutional reference)

The article primarily relies on official statements and referenced political figures rather than multiple independent reporting sources. As a result, the sourcing structure functions more as a summary of a political announcement than a multi-source investigative or analytical report.

Consider the headline: “As shutdown ends, furious Democrats eat their own”. While well-documented, the article lacks insight into what the Republican Party’s perspective on the situation is. This absence creates a perception that only the Democrats are reeling after the end of the shutdown. This leaves the audience with a skewed perspective.

Readers cannot find opposing perspectives in this article. Liz Peek, Fox News’s reporter, only mentions the reactions from the Democrats. An example can be found in this quote:

“Schumer is also being attacked for not endorsing Zohran Mamdani, the 34-year-old antisemitic democratic socialist who was recently elected mayor of New York City. Schumer could not endorse Mamdani without angering his Jewish supporters and without alienating moderate Democrats who are rightly horrified that their party has been hijacked by the far left.”

Concerning the Republican Senators who also feel conflicted about the end of the shutdown, there is no mention of the data or reasoning behind their thoughts. This lack of information gives readers the impression that only the Democrats have expressed their opinion publicly.

In contrast, the article “Families sue Camp Mystic over deadly Texas flood, allege negligence and profit motive” maintains objectivity. It features multiple quotes from the parents of the children who passed and the attorneys without any editorial slant. Within the article, there is also an alleged timeline of events. The author refrains from making any personal assessments on it. This allows readers to interpret the situation on their own.

The article gains credibility through its 9 quotes from the filed lawsuit— 6 long and 3 medium-length. These extensive quotations strengthen reliability by providing full context and minimizing misrepresentation, offering readers a more authentic and trustworthy account from primary sources.

The article features one main source, primarily quoting from the lawsuit that was filed. The attorney who filed it was R. Paul Yetter, who is also mentioned within the article.

• Filed Lawsuit
• Paul Yetter, Attorney from Yetter Coleman LLP

The article accurately reflects legislative records and the parents’ anger. Inflammatory statements, such as fully blaming Camp Mystic for the deaths of campers and counselors, are presented as-is, leaving room for reader interpretation.

The article primarily relies on primary sources, which are highly valid and enhance its reliability. Given its focus on fully explaining why the lawsuit occurred, the usage of quotes directly from it is common within the article. This presentation of facts as-is helps the viewer’s trust in Fox News grow.

Selection and Omission Bias

Fox News provides extensive coverage of the United States, which is reasonable given the state’s political makeup. However, bias may still emerge through framing and story selection.

In “Senate vote to end government shutdown ignites Democrat civil war”, selection bias surfaces through the article’s emphasis on negative aspects of Democrat discourse. The article does not explore positive initiatives that come after the end of the shutdown, nor does it present contrasting viewpoints. Still, it remains rooted in verifiable quotes.

The article does not highlight any proactive or positive measures that come after the end of the shutdown, and only on how the end of it has allegedly fractured the Democratic party. Therefore, the article leans right in its framing. The author addresses threats and division as a problem of the Democratic Party, without exploring broader or contrasting perspectives. That said, the reporting is still grounded in verifiable facts and quotes for the most part.

By comparison, the article “101-year-old Kristallnacht survivor warns current era ‘equivalent to 1938’ on anniversary of Nazi riot” shows a stronger balance. Reporter Ashley Carnahan includes quotes from the Kristallnacht survivor and other Jewish institutions that are referenced in the article.

Carnahan uses quotes from primary sources that explain the situation well when brought together. The article integrated conversations that took place at synagogues and with the other survivors of the Kristallnacht who were also present. She also remained strictly factual when providing facts and backstory for the interviewees. Overall, Carnahan used a well-rounded approach to delivering unbiased news to readers of Fox News.

Analysis of Fox News Opinion Pieces

Opinion pieces tend to be the complete opposite of objective reporting. These pieces often are meant to convey a persuasive argument, leading to lower rates of accuracy and reliability overall. Let’s look at this opinion piece, for example, titled “What Biden’s woke military has wrought.

“Unfortunately, recent Democrat administrations – and Joe Biden’s is no exception – have made race, gender, and controversial political teachings an integral part of military training and values, from the Pentagon to our service academies.”

The author makes his position very clear in the thesis of his article by displaying his disagreement with what he perceives to be the Biden administration’s priorities. We can expect the rest of the article to follow suit and defend his argument. Opinion articles also do not require strict reporting. Take the following, for example:

“A recent Reagan National Defense Survey found that the number of Americans with a “great deal” of confidence in the military has plummeted from 70 percent in 2018 to 45 percent now. The largest decline in trust comes among Republicans, whose strong confidence fell from 87 percent to 53 percent – a disturbing 34 percent drop.”

The article uses two pieces of evidence to explain this drop, which we’ll review later. It is important to note that causality here is completely interpreted by the author, and no direct evidence is shown to link the prior quote to the following quotes. Here we can see several instances of selection and omission bias in the picking and choosing of facts to frame the Biden administration in a bad light:

“Soon after Joe Biden became president, the Pentagon ordered an unprecedented military-wide ‘stand down’ of service members to root out right-wing domestic extremists, wasting 5.8 million man-hours. The Pentagon then hired Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion Officers at salaries as high as $200,000. For the past two years, the Department of Defense rigidly enforced vaccine requirements, cutting off tens of thousands of service members from benefits, even when many have legitimate objections and are young, healthy adults.”

“In recent years, the academies have also taught radical doctrines like Critical Race Theory under the label of ‘diversity and inclusion.’ The Air Force Academy established a special ‘Diversity and Inclusion reading room’ that it described as a “safe space” for America’s young warriors. It also created an organization of hand-picked cadets – identified by a purple braid on their dress uniform—to spread these controversial ideals in the ranks. At West Point, cadets can now minor in “Diversity and Inclusion Studies” alongside cadets studying serious subjects like Grand Strategy, Aeronautical Engineering, and Nuclear Science.”

Starting from the top, we can see selection bias in the initial choice to include only facts supporting the idea that confidence in the military has plummeted due to the actions taken by a democratic administration. We can see omission bias in the exclusion of other potential causes of this decline in confidence, leaving the reader to believe that the Biden administration must be the sole cause.  The article then selects to focus on spending associated with military diversity initiatives and vaccine initiatives, choosing to omit any statistics regarding spending in other areas. Finally, the article focuses on diversity education programs, criticizing the programs while omitting any contrasting opinions or facts illustrating the benefits of such programs.

The presence of this degree of omission and selection bias highlights the issues of accuracy and reliability that arise within the opinion article. Because this is an opinion article, only one side is articulated, and only facts supporting the opinion being made are given. While the facts and studies supporting the opinions being made might be reliable and credible, by choosing to exclude facts that go against the main opinion of the article, the author is reducing the overall reliability of the article as a whole by preventing the reader from forming a full picture of the issue being discussed. For the sake of balance, let’s look into why these investigations and diversity initiatives are happening.

Multiple defense agencies came together to agree on pursuing investigations into extremism within the military. According to this CSIS blog post, these investigations “came amid growing concern over extremist network efforts to tailor recruitment toward military personnel and an increase in criminal cases involving extremism in the ranks.” The author argues that these investigations are important because “military personnel can add larger-than-average value to extremist networks due to their specialized knowledge and abilities—including communications, logistics, and tactical skills.” The post also discusses that this isn’t the first time the DOD has investigated extremism, with the last time being in 1995 due to a bombing in Oklahoma and the Fort Bragg murders.

If we consider the facts provided by the blog post above and contrast them with the narrative presented in the Fox article, we can see two different perspectives on the issue of diversity and anti-extremism in the military. In one, these measures are framed as a waste of time by an incompetent democratic administration, and in another, an important part of ongoing counter-terrorism efforts.

By examining how the same issue can be framed in two very different ways through the selection and omission of different facts, we can see how opinion pieces are particularly susceptible to issues of reliability. Furthermore, as a more conservative news source, Fox News, in an effort to appeal to its viewers, is incentivized to engage in further selection bias by choosing only to publish opinion pieces that support more conservative ideals, even at the cost of their overall reliability.

So, is Fox News Reliable?

Overall, Fox News 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.

However, Fox News does still try to maintain as much transparency as it can throughout its writing and webpage, even with the advertisements it chooses to display.

Who Funds Fox News?

Fox News is owned and operated by Fox News Media, a subsidiary of Fox Corporation, a multinational company governed by Lachlan Murdoch. Fox Corporation was officially established in 2019 and is the parent company of Fox News. Its funding today comes primarily from advertising sales. Fox Corporation also holds stock in various companies around the world, and small shares of these stocks are sometimes given to employees.

Fox News also occasionally provides funding to politicians through FOXPAC, primarily to the Republican Party. This was a trend started by Rupert Murdoch and continued by his son, Lachlan, today. As with any outlet, funding sources and board priorities can shape newsroom incentives over time and should be monitored by readers.

Other contributors focus on elections, tighter border laws, or the abolishment of Obamacare; topics that are highly important to the Republicans. While contributors may lean right in tone or topic selection, their work is generally 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 Fox News fits into the broader media landscape, we recommend exploring these helpful resources:

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