Wall Street Journal Article RatingOpinion | Californians for Fossil Fuels?
- Bias Rating
6% Center
- Reliability
N/AN/A
- Policy Leaning
-6% Center
- Politician Portrayal
10% Negative
Continue For Free
Create your free account to see the in-depth bias analytics and more.
Continue
Continue
By creating an account, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Policy, and subscribe to email updates. Already a member: Log inBias Score Analysis
The A.I. bias rating includes policy and politician portrayal leanings based on the author’s tone found in the article using machine learning. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral.
Sentiments
N/A
- Liberal
- Conservative
| Sentence | Sentiment | Bias |
|---|---|---|
Unlock this feature by upgrading to the Pro plan. | ||
Reliability Score Analysis
Policy Leaning Analysis
Politician Portrayal Analysis
Bias Meter
Extremely
Liberal
Very
Liberal
Moderately
Liberal
Somewhat Liberal
Center
Somewhat Conservative
Moderately
Conservative
Very
Conservative
Extremely
Conservative
-100%
Liberal
100%
Conservative
Contributing sentiments towards policy:
53% : They also could have cost mineral rights owners up to $50 million in royalty and leasing payments, and local schools and public safety tens of millions of dollars in tax revenue.51% : The changes were put on ice after energy companies qualified two referenda for the June 7 primary ballot.
*Our bias meter rating uses data science including sentiment analysis, machine learning and our proprietary algorithm for determining biases in news articles. Bias scores are on a scale of -100% to 100% with higher negative scores being more liberal and higher positive scores being more conservative, and 0% being neutral. The rating is an independent analysis and is not affiliated nor sponsored by the news source or any other organization.