RealClearPolitics
Bias and Reliability

The tone of the article is made clear from the first sentence when the author states:

“President Joe Biden’s administration has tried for weeks to keep the public from seeing images like those released Monday of immigrant children in U.S. custody at the border sleeping on mats under foil blankets, separated in groups by plastic partitions.”

The opening tone criticizes the Biden administration’s border handling, though the author remains neutral and lets sources speak. For example:

“The newly published photos released by Cuellar’s office show groups of children crowded together inside the partitions. Some appear to be watching television while others are lying on floor mats, some side by side. Children are shown wearing surgical masks, but are close to each other.”

The article’s diction is anything but extreme. Throughout the article, the authors present facts objectively without inserting their own opinions. The strongest diction used is:

“Several of those visits revealed troubling conditions inside, including the detention of large numbers of children as young as 5 separated from their parents.”

Overall, the authors remain objective, suggesting the bias mainly reflects a centered article framing.

Authors Nomaan Merchant, Jonathan Lemire, and Josh Boak show little bias and maintain strong records of journalistic integrity. Furthermore, their Twitter profiles (linked above) display an array of ideological viewpoints and minimal partisanship. Examples of tweets are shown below.

The White House press corps in Nantucket saved a seat and our thoughts for @evangershkovich at our Thanksgiving table tonight. #IStandWithEvan https://t.co/LhDoH900Ak pic.twitter.com/bYJBtmDGa7

— Seung Min Kim (@seungminkim) November 24, 2023

Nearly 21 million children in the U.S. and its territories are expected to receive food benefits this summer through a newly permanent federal program, the United States Department of Agriculture announced Wednesday. https://t.co/DblaTA9xtT

— Josh Boak (@joshboak) January 10, 2024

Overall, the authors convey frustration with the Biden administration’s handling of the border and its perceived lack of transparency with the press. However, the article maintains strong journalistic standards and remains objective by drawing on multiple sources and viewpoints. This shows that although RealClearPolitics has a conservative bias, many articles follow journalistic standards and qualify as quality reporting.

Although this article shows little bias, bias can vary between articles and authors within the same organization. This highlights the importance of identifying bias indicators such as tone, tendency, diction, and author background.

Here is another analysis article from RealClearPolitics that displays little bias, “Will Rioting Sway the Election Picture”. Bialsy rated the article Medium Right. The article compares the 2020 election with historical examples, including the 1948 race between Harry Truman and Thomas E. Dewey. The article also discusses various election theories, such as:

“an old theory that political scientists call “retrospective voting.”  The idea is pretty straightforward: When voters go into the voting booth, they aren’t making a choice between two candidates.  Instead, they’re mostly passing judgment on the incumbent candidate’s performance.”

The Medium Right rating reflects focus on changes benefiting Donald Trump, though the analysis remains grounded in historical examples. RealClearPolitics publishes diverse political coverage, so article quality can vary across its website.

Analysis of RealClearPolitics Opinion Articles

Before we jump into opinion articles, it is important to distinguish between opinion and reporting. Reporting aims to present facts and primary-source quotes, while opinion pieces allow columnists to express personal views. Although earlier analysis included factual reporting, RealClearPolitics opinion pieces often prioritize advancing the author’s argument over presenting facts.

Consider the opinion article, “Biden Border Policy: Criminals Welcome.” The title uses strong, biased diction implying Biden welcomes criminals to cross the southern border. Throughout the article, the author omits sources or viewpoints that would support Biden’s border policy while attacking the potential ramifications. One example states,

“Immigration advocacy had moved from shielding otherwise law-abiding undocumented immigrants to protecting undocumented immigrants with criminal records. It’s happening again under Biden. That’s not policy; it’s recklessness.”

Framing the position with this language and using an emotionally provocative word like reckless proves this piece is demonstrably bias. Omission bias, strong tone, and the title suggest the author does not aim for balanced reporting.

In contrast, “The Problem With Ideological Purity in Congress” uses a neutral title that signals discussion rather than provoking partisanship. Reliable articles, like this one, are marked by neutral language and facts from credible sources. Based on the title alone, it is safe to assume that this article is less biased than the previous one.

One quote that demonstrates the neutrality of this article states,

“In sum, for both parties, purity is fatal for solving problems and sustaining majorities.”

This statement highlights the points in the article, which are not aimed at one party but at both of them equally. The author’s supporting arguments are not framed from a biased stance, and the reporting covers the story thoroughly. These examples represent limited content but show the outlet mixes opinion and reporting, highlighting the need to distinguish subjective writing.

Analysis of Reliability in RealClearPolitics’s Online News Articles

Opinion-style journalism is a vehicle for reporters to express their beliefs, even if excessive opinion should be avoided. Although opinion pieces are less trustworthy because they are subjective, they can still be worthwhile to read to increase one’s understanding of various political viewpoints.

RealClearPolitics opinion articles have caused issues in the past with their reliability because they tended to promote conservative ideologies and individuals. For example, RealClearPolitics was embroiled in controversy after the 2020 election because of their resistance to admitting Trump’s electoral defeat.

The article “New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud” is advertised as ‘commentary’ but looks more like an opinion piece with an intense conservative bias. RealClearPolitics’s commitment to pro-Trump coverage superseded their desire to accurately and objectively report the news, likely in an attempt to appeal to their majority conservative viewership.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

RealClearPolitics can be good at using reliable sources from both sides of the ideological divide and citing facts as evidence; however, the quality of journalism varies from article to article. Consider, “Dems in Tough Elections Ignore Pelosi’s Push to Tout BBB.” In this article by Susan Crabtree, there are only six quotes. Of the six quotes, two are short, three are medium-length, and one is long.

In addition, the author’s four sources for the article are:

• Leaked phone call between Representative Pelosi and Democratic donors
• CNBC/Change Research Survey
• Quote from former White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki
• Selected tweets from Democratic politicians

The quality of sources used is average. The leaked phone call and survey are high-quality sources; however, the tweets from Democratic representatives (some of which are almost a decade old) and out-of-context quotes from the press secretary are not as reliable.

Furthermore, most of the quotes used are not statistical facts but rather opinions from Democratic politicians, which allow the author to further her argument. The article does address Democrats’ strategy to sell the Build Back Better bill to the American people, but with the underlying assumption that the legislation is flawed. The article’s opening sentence demonstrates the author’s combative tone:

“As congressional Democrats struggle to breathe new life into their stalled legislative agenda…”

The article does use some quality sources; however, the author shows a conservative bias from the first sentence to the last. Therefore, the article relies on average-quality sources and lacks evidence-based reporting.

The author, Susan Crabtree, could have improved the quality of her article by using more original sources and grappling with the effects of the proposed (now-passed) Build Back Better Bill. However, despite its conservative undertones, most of the article’s sources are from CNBC, which Biasly considers somewhat liberal.

The only conservative reference the author cites is from the Daily Mail. The latter discusses Nancy Pelosi’s calls for the Democratic Party to brag more to donors about President Biden’s achievements while avoiding the word “transformative” when describing Build Back Better. Specifically, in Pelosi’s words:

“So, this is transformative. But people tell me not to use the word ‘transformative.’ Just say it lowers costs. It lowers costs for health care — costs for families across America; it lowers the cost of child care; it enables so much more to happen. So, we’re very, very proud of the legislation. Now we just have to get it passed.”

The author’s language implies that Pelosi is refraining from overselling the accomplishments of Biden due to rising inflation and economic troubles among the American people:

“The new CNBC poll, which showed Biden with a 56% disapproval rating — the worst of his presidency — also revealed deep concerns over the spike in inflation since he took office. Nearly three-fourths of those polled disapprove of his handling of “kitchen table issues,” and 89% of voters labeled the price of everyday goods as “poor” or “not so good,” the survey found.

Independents, who delivered the election for Biden, gave him a “D” across the board on economic issues, with most voters blaming the rising prices of goods on his policies and government spending.” As for its other sources, the article links to mailchimp.com, but it no longer works. Additionally, this link from rev.com doesn’t take a partisan approach in its content. Instead, it’s merely a transcript from a 2022 press conference with White House Press Secretary Jen Psaki.

Another RealClearPolitics article, “New Peer-Reviewed Research Finds Evidence of 2020 Voter Fraud,” relies on claims later rejected in federal court. The author cites polling showing 52% believe cheating affected the 2020 election, thereby presenting opinion as evidence of wrongdoing.

A Hoover Institution review argues that many statistical claims of voter fraud rely on inaccurate facts or on unsurprising patterns. The U.S. judicial system reached the same conclusion, declaring in over 60 court cases, some of which were presided over by Republican judges, that the 2020 election was legitimate and that Joe Biden was the true winner of the race.

Furthermore, the Harvard Kennedy School’s Misinformation Review highlights a significant partisan divide in beliefs about the election outcome. Their study found that most Trump voters believed it was more likely that Trump would win than Biden, despite a lack of evidence of voter fraud and Biden securing an electoral vote victory.

On top of all of this, Ken Block, a voter data expert hired by the Trump campaign to find voter fraud in the election, penned an op-ed stating unequivocally that the 2020 presidential election was not fraudulent and that there was no evidence of voter fraud sufficient to change its outcomeof the election​.

The author posits the result of his “forthcoming [research] in a peer-reviewed economics journal” before its publication, which flies in the face of the scientific method. Specifically, this research originates from a study by John Lott Jr., an economist and president of the Crime Prevention Research Center. According to his findings, there were approximately 255,000 “excess votes” for President Joe Biden in six key battleground states during the 2020 election, possibly as many as 368,000.

Lott’s research focused on ballot counts in states where former Trump alleged voter fraud. The study’s fundamental assertion is that these excess votes may explain Biden’s margin of victory over Trump. The states in question are Arizona, Georgia, Michigan, Nevada, Pennsylvania, and Wisconsin, with Biden’s total margin being 313,253 votes. Excluding Michigan, the gap was supposedly 159,065 votes.

Lott used three primary methods in his study:

1. He compared precincts in a county with alleged fraud to adjacent precincts in neighboring counties with no fraud allegations. For example, he found a significant unexplained gap in absentee ballot counts in Fulton County, Georgia, compared to 2016.
2. He analyzed provisional ballots in Allegheny County, Pennsylvania, where voters were allegedly allowed to correct defects in absentee ballots by submitting provisional ballots on Election Day. This method suggested an additional 6,700 votes for Biden in Allegheny County alone.
3. He examined areas with unusually high turnouts, noting that Democratic-leaning counties had lower turnouts in 2020, except for counties with alleged vote fraud. In these counties, there was a significant increase in turnout.

Nevertheless, Lott clarified that he did not intend his report to contest the 2020 election. Instead, he wanted to highlight issues that need attention to enhance public confidence in future elections (e.g., changes to voter identification, absentee voting, and provisional ballots).

It’s important to note that while this study raises questions and presents findings that suggest discrepancies, it does not conclusively prove widespread voter fraud. The legitimacy of the study’s methodology and conclusions can be subject to further scrutiny and debate among the academic community and election experts. As with any single study, it’s critical to consider it within the broader context of electoral research and analysis.

Selection and Omission Bias

In another example from RealClearPolitics, we can see the author’s disdain for the Build Back Better Bill (which was being considered by Congress at the time). This article, “The Progressive Logic of Build Back Better — and Its Dangers,” by Charles Lipson, focuses on what he perceives as the negative impacts of the bill and the dangers associated with progressivism. The author does not use quotes from either side of the political spectrum; instead, he conveys the progressive movement’s history since FDR and the New Deal.

The article exhibits selection and omission biases in its discussion of the Build Back Better plan and broader progressive politics. Lipson primarily focuses on the perceived risks and drawbacks of the plan, emphasizing its potential to transform the United States into a social welfare state akin to those in Europe. This perspective is underscored by a significant critique of progressive politics, tracing its history and arguing that it tends to override traditional governing procedures. For instance, Lipson states:

“Enacting these massive, new entitlements is one reason the House bill is rightly called ‘progressive.’ The second, equally important reason is that nearly all Democrats, except Manchin and his Arizona colleague Kyrsten Sinema, are willing to break the Senate’s longstanding rules and procedures to achieve their desired outcome.”

This quote exemplifies the selection bias in the article, highlighting certain aspects of the legislation and the Democratic Party’s approach, potentially at the expense of discussing its benefits or the reasons behind its support. Furthermore, the article presents a limited range of perspectives, mainly critiquing the progressive movement and its methods.

More broadly, there must be better counter-arguments or defenses of the Build Back Better plan or progressive politics. This omission creates an unbalanced view, leaning towards a critique of the progressive agenda. Historical examples and discussions on constitutional interpretations further support this viewpoint, possibly omitting other perspectives or interpretations that might offer a different understanding. Thus, while providing a detailed analysis of the progressive elements of the Build Back Better plan, the article does so with a noticeable selection and omission bias.

In the article we discussed earlier, “Dems in Tough Elections Ignore Pelosi’s Push to Tout BBB,” the author selects quotes from Democratic leaders that she can use as fodder to disagree with and further her argument against the Build Back Better bill.

The selection of quotes does not imply a liberal bias – it simply gives the author something to disagree with. On the other hand, the author omits any information/opinion(s) that would indicate a positive effect of the Build Back Better Bill. The use of the CNBC Change Research survey is a reputable source backed by the scientific process.

Nevertheless, the author selectively emphasizes aspects of the bill and related political maneuvers that align with a critical or opposing viewpoint. This approach is evident in the choice of quotes and data. For instance, the article highlights House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s strategy on the bill, as illustrated by this quote:

“As congressional Democrats struggle to breathe new life into their stalled legislative agenda, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi earlier this week told “VIP” donors on a leaked private phone call that all party members need to brag about the House-passed version of the Build Back Better bill even as she cautioned her colleagues not to describe the multitrillion-dollar spending measure’s impact as too sweeping.”

This focus on Pelosi’s cautious promotion strategy, combined with the selective presentation of poll data emphasizing public concerns about the economy and inflation, paints a picture of internal party disagreements and public skepticism.

In addition, the article spotlights the reluctance of some Democrats in competitive races to publicly endorse the bill, further supporting a narrative of uncertainty and lack of confidence in the bill’s merits. The selective use of quotes and data, particularly from reputable sources like the CNBC Change Research survey, reinforces an argument critical of the BBB bill while omitting more positive aspects or supportive opinions. The overall reliability of this article is poor because of the omission of contradictory viewpoints and the calculated selection of quotes and statistics.

In opinion pieces, issues with factuality, sources, selection, and omission are frequently present. The articles we’ve covered are biased and exclude adequate, relevant background information that may contradict the author’s position. As a news organization with a conservative slant and funding, RealClearPolitics has minimal incentive to stop appealing to its majority conservative readership. Now that we have enumerated typical trustworthiness indications, you may stay current by informing yourself on the most accurate news.

Is RealClearPolitics Biased?

Based on Biasly’s evaluations, RealClearPolitics is rated as Center.

By examining content patterns and the broader context of media influence, we aim to offer a balanced perspective on RealClearPolitics’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 RealClearPolitics Politically Biased?

RealClearPolitics earns a Center rating for its AI Bias Score and a Medium Right for its Analyst Bias Score. The Analyst Bias Score is generated by reviewers from liberal, moderate, and conservative backgrounds. Biasly’s rating is based on two scores: an AI-generated score and a human analyst score. Biasly rated RealClearPolitics with a source bias score of ‘Center’ and an analyst bias score of %_SOURCE_ANST_BIAS_RATING_%, which means, overall, it provides political coverage from a rather conservative political perspective.

Analyst scores use about 15 articles, each reviewed by liberal, moderate, and conservative analysts. The more articles rated by Biasly’s analyst team for a particular source, the more accurate the analyst score. Praise for conservative politicians and policies, as well as disdain toward Democratic policies and politicians, contribute to this rating. Biasly’s scores mostly align with determinations by other third-party bias research agencies.

Since the 2016 election, RealClearPolitics has faced criticism for being biased in favor of conservative causes. The source faced criticism for its election coverage and editorial decisions following the 2020 presidential election. Furthermore, RealClearPolitics published an article in 2019 that identified the whistleblower who led to Trump’s impeachment. The case pertained to a secret call between Trump and the Ukrainian president that the whistleblower reported. Facebook, Fox News, and others refused to publish an article naming the whistleblower for concerns about their safety.

Readers may have strong opinions of RealClearPolitics because it tends to favor conservative causes and figures. This is represented by Biasly’s “Somewhat Conservative” rating. This article explains how to identify bias so you can separate opinions from facts and become a more informed reader.

Before we begin, we need to discuss bias. Bias is a natural function of humans, and we can express it both consciously and subconsciously. Bias is one of the most fundamental forms of pattern recognition in humans. This does not claim everything is biased, but it explains why we may trust news organizations showing consistent coverage patterns.

On the media’s part, there is an incentive to retain audiences, encourage them to purchase subscriptions, and rate products positively. Bias works both ways: audiences want preferred stories, and media organizations need viewers to sustain operations. This creates a positive feedback loop that influences what stories are covered and from what perspective. This explains the actions of many news organizations.

How to Evaluate Bias

Although Biasly rates RealClearPolitics as Center, it’s important to remember that bias can vary from article to article. RealClearPolitics 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 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 RealClearPolitics Fare in Its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly assesses both accuracy and trustworthiness. RealClearPolitics currently holds Average 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.

RealClearPolitics’s Source Analysis Score is Average at 45% Reliable. This suggests readers can trust some of the sources, links, and quotes provided by the news source. This score, which is based on A.I., focuses on assessing the quality of sources and quotes used, including their number, length, uniqueness, and diversity.

The Fact Analysis Score of RealClearPolitics is Average at 57% Reliable. The Fact Analysis score focuses more on the accuracy of claims, facts, and sources presented in the article and any hints of selection and omission bias, which we will discuss further in the article.

The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. RealClearPolitics’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Average’ by Biasly. This rating is a weighted average of two distinct scores: the Fact Analysis Score and the Source Analysis Score, each evaluating separate components of RealClearPolitics’s Reliability. When computing the Average Reliability of the article, the Fact Analysis score is given greater weight.

However, since these scores are based on percentages and averages, individual articles could be more or less trustworthy depending on the context, author, and other factors. Our findings show that RealClearPolitics’s reliability is mostly but not all factual because they have retracted several stories in the past or had pieces that were not factual.

Let us analyze the supporting data for RealClearPolitics’s rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.

RealClearPolitics’s Accuracy and Reliability

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

The credibility of news organizations is impacted significantly by bias and political orientation. Like numerous other media organizations, RealClearPolitics has occasionally received accusations of prioritizing the conservative agenda over facts. We can evaluate the integrity of RealClearPolitics news stories and deduce how well the publication supports assertions with evidence. We will check for selection and omission bias as we assess the articles’ correctness and factuality.

Selection bias occurs when stories or facts are chosen or ignored to support a source’s ideology. Omission bias occurs when opposing opinions are excluded, exposing readers only to the ideological perspective favored by the author. It’s essential to keep in mind these two types of biases when trying to assess an article’s level of accuracy.

Biasly assigns a percentage score for accuracy, with 1 being the least accurate and 100 the most accurate. Ratings consider supporting evidence, reliable internal sources, and credible external sources. A full page at Biasly’s website includes dependability and accuracy ratings for newly released RealClearPolitics news stories. As we previously stated, Biasly’s analysts generally rate RealClearPolitics as 57% reliable.

Reliability scores vary across articles, often due to bias, particularly omission and selection bias. Consider ABC News, which has a somewhat liberal bias and is 78% reliable, according to Biasly. For example, one article scored 85% reliability, while another on Georgia voting laws scored only 42%. With this in mind, readers must carefully examine sources for reliability since it is not uniform from article to article.

For example, the RealClearPolitics article “RCP Takeaway; Weaponized Filibuster? Omicron Onslaught” is rated Somewhat Right. Regarding selection and omission bias, the author relies on summaries instead of primary-source quotes in this briefing article. The author links to outside sources, but their selection and reliability are notably weak. To demonstrate:

“Are adults who’ve received their booster shots at far less risk of hospitalization or death? Everyone from medical policy experts to frontline healthcare workers insists that this is so, and the early data apparently backs it up. All I can say is that we should all pray that this is true and that this trend holds.”

The author cites Alex Berenson to support vaccine skepticism, though Berenson has been criticized for spreading questionable information. The author also cites a bitterly partisan Fox News article about AOC testing positive for COVID-19. Using fewer partisan sources or including balanced perspectives would have made the article less biased and more reliable. Therefore, this article is less reliable than it could be.

So, is RealClearPolitics Reliable?

Overall, RealClearPolitics can be considered to be an outlet that is moderately reliable. RealClearPolitics is a semi-reliable news source/aggregator with a mediocre reputation for journalistic integrity. Critically, reliability fluctuates from article to article, so it is essential to consider each article’s reliability independently of others. The more you research media reliability and accuracy, the simpler it will be for you to spot problems with sources, selection, omission, and factuality. To help with this, you can use Biasly’s News Bias Checker to uncover reliability problems and assist you in finding the most accurate.

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.

Policy and Issue Framing

When covering the border and immigration, this source slants right, as shown in “Despite Trump’s Success, Immigration Isn’t ‘Solved.'” The article labels Donald Trump’s immigration policy as corrective and the previous Democratic administration’s as “brazenly” breaking the law. This refers to specific executive measures taken by Donald Trump to remove undocumented residents from the country. Articles of this nature by RealClearPolitics appear dissatisfied with the Democrats’ recent handling of immigration. Trump’s policies, on the other hand, even though occasionally critiqued by the publication, are presented more positively.

This source also occasionally discusses climate change with a disdainful tone, referencing the “climate industrial complex.” Although this is cited in a source, the label aligns with right-leaning beliefs about climate change. Conversely, liberal viewpoints tend to affirm climate change policies, which do not often occur in RealClearPolitics’s articles.

Using polls and public opinion data to argue against liberal perspectives, this source sometimes equates liberal views with fringe perspectives. Some publications prefer sources supporting right-leaning interpretations of institutions, especially when covering climate change and immigration policies.

Coverage and Relevance

RealClearPolitics’s articles cover a vast array of topics and global interest stories, even including a “Books and Culture” section. Within the sphere of politics, this source covers nearly every area from elections to active political investigations. The articles do not shy away from any topic, including discussions from social justice to finance.

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

Who Funds RealClearPolitics?

RealClearPolitics has no requirement to share its funders, but IRS filings have disclosed a few. Notwithstanding all funding from subscriptions and online advertising, some of the largest contributors include DonorsTrust, the Charles Koch Foundation, and the Allegheny Foundation. They have also been funded by notoriously conservative donor foundations like the Sarah Scaife and Thomas W. Smith Foundations.

The most noteworthy contributors to this platform primarily cover political topics and sometimes lean right in their language choices. Readers can compare RealClearPolitics’s framing of topics with other sources rated Center or Lean Left on Biasly’s Media Bias Chart.

Related Tools and Resource Pages

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

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