In 2019, Statista created a study analyzing reduced media trust among audiences because of the rise of fake news. 50% of Egyptian audiences had lost confidence in media sources compared to the average of 40% among global audiences.
Considering the general distrust, which is greater in Egypt, audiences today question how we can find accurate and informative sources. Learning how to identify these sources is valuable not just for readers of Egypt Today, but any individual who seeks to increase their knowledge of current events.
Is Egypt Today part of the greater media issue that has caused the general distrust of such sources in Egypt? One of Biasly’s primary goals is to analyze the general dependability of sources, as such, the following is an analysis of the accuracy and dependability of Egypt Today.
Does Reliability Matter?
Reliability, in general, refers to how trustworthy or accurate information, or in this case, a news source is. If we consider this definition, it quickly becomes clear why reliability is important in media sources. If we can’t trust the things we read then there isn’t much of a point in continuing to consume content from that source, after all. So how exactly can we gauge the reliability of a news source anyways?
There are several potential measures of reliability to look out for when trying to determine whether a media source is reliable or not. Red flags for an unreliable article can include the presence of wild unsubstantiated claims, facts dependent on other unreliable sources, heavy use of opinionated language, and more. Some indicators of a reliable news source, on the other hand, include things like:
- Absence of subjective/opinionated language in articles
- Credible sources cited (e.g., neutral sources, .gov, .edu websites)
- Facts and statistics backed by multiple relevant outside sources
- Use of primary sources when possible (e.g., interviews, quotes)
- Information that remains consistent across news sources
So How Does Egypt Today Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Egypt Today’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Good’ 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 Egypt Today’s Reliability. When computing the Average Reliability of the article the Fact Analysis score is more heavily weighted. These ratings are as follows in the next two paragraphs:
Egypt Today’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Excellent,’ which suggests readers can trust the majority of Egypt Today’s content online. 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.
Egypt Today’s Source Analysis Score is ‘Fair,’ which 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, lengths, uniqueness, and diversity.
Understanding how Biasly determines these scores is essential to understanding exactly what the rating means for readers like you, as these scores are an average of Egypt Today and are not universally applicable to all of their publications. Specific Fact Analysis and Source Analysis Scores are determined on a case-by-case basis, as each article will use different sources and each author will analyze sources differently. A closer analysis of Egypt Today’s articles will help readers understand what to look for and the greater context behind their reliability ratings.
Egypt Today’s Accuracy and Reliability
Often when a publication isn’t reliable it is because of bias from the publisher. Egypt Today, however, tends to have a “Center” bias, rated by both our analysts and the program. Regardless, two factors contribute to any inaccuracies or lack of reliability, selection and omission bias. These forms of bias diminish the quality of the sources used to support the stories and arguments presented. Egypt Today, while having a reputation for neutrality, is not immune.
Selection bias is when stories and facts are selected or deselected, often on ideological grounds, to create a narrative in support of the new sources’ ideology. Omission bias, on the other hand, is when different opinions and political views regarding a situation are left out so that the reader is only exposed to the ideological perspective supported by the author. It’s important to keep in mind these two types of biases when trying to assess an article’s level of accuracy.
At Biasly, we provide a detailed score on its reliability with a percentage. These percentages are determined by the quantity of internal and external sources used and how these sources align with their arguments. While Egypt Today has an overall score of ‘Good’ for reliability, some of the articles may vary. Political bias, while it may contribute to reliability, does not limit the possibility of poor reliability. Consider the following sources from our Side-by-Side page:
- “Biden administration ‘is secretly worried about corruption in Ukraine,’”
- “Trump wants future Republican debates to be canceled,”
- “Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty to Felony Gun Charges”.
Each has different political biases, yet varying reliability scores.
The neutral source “Biden administration ‘is secretly worried about corruption in Ukraine’” is rated as “Center” but has a reliability score of “Poor”. While the “Extremely Liberal” source, “Trump wants future Republican debates to be canceled”, and the “Extremely Conservative” source, “Hunter Biden Pleads Not Guilty to Felony Gun Charges”, are both “Fair” in their reliability. While political bias can serve as a gauge for reliability, it does not always equate directly.
Egypt Today, for example, has an article titled “Everyone knows Security Council won’t do much on GERD issue…” which is “Somewhat Liberal” and includes limited sources that largely support Egypt. As written referring to Mohamed Hegazy’s statements:
“He said that East Africa does not belong to one or two countries, calling on the international community to take the appropriate measures before the situation erupts due to Ethiopia’s intransigence and unilateral actions.”
The selection bias is clear in this particular article from Egypt Today as it cites opinions only from Egyptian sources. It does not provide commentary from representatives of the other countries. Because of the limited scope of evidence provided the reliability is only “Fair”, meaning readers should caution its reporting. If the author had included more perspectives and a wider range of sources, it would be more reliable.
The following examples provide a greater analysis of the Selection and Omission bias of Egypt Today’s articles.
Analysis of Reliability in Egypt Today Opinion Pieces
Opinion pieces are widely regarded as openly biased articles presenting the arguments and worldviews of the publishers and authors. Such pieces allow the voices of those involved to be heard without encroaching on the traditional expectations of supposedly “unbiased” reporting within other news articles. These pieces open political discussion and provide insight into the general opinions of the public, rather than focusing on facts alone.
Egypt Today tends to avoid publishing opinion pieces, as previously stated they are a known source of “Center” news because of their distance from American politics. Regardless, some of their pieces openly show more bias than others. Such is the case with their article, “I am [not a sexual object, not a commodity, not a burden] a Girl.”
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
The article in question is rated as “Very Liberal”, which features 17 quotes. The majority of these quotes are mid to long, with 4 being substantially large quotes. Upon initial inspection, the quantity of quotes and sources used is a good sign of the article’s reliability. However, the reliability of a quote is not dependent on length alone but also on who sourced the information. The following are the sources used in this article:
- El Nemr (Liberal)
- State of the World Population Report 2020 (Neutral)
- Mudasser Siddiqui (Liberal)
- Nevine El Kabbaj (Liberal)
- Engee Soliman (Unknown)
- Rodaina (Unknown)
- Unnamed 23 year old woman
- Nehad AbulKomsan (Liberal)
- Cindy Southworth (Liberal)
- Amr Hassan (Liberal)
- NCCM (Liberal)
- Central Agency for Public Mobilization and Statistics (Neutral)
- World Health Organization (Neutral)
While the article employs many different voices, each voice is to support the primary feminist claims of the author. Some of the sources are anecdotes used by the author to describe the events happening in correlation with the International Day of the Girl. The primary issue with reliability is not the length or quantity, each of which the author excels in, but rather the types of sources employed. Most of the voices used are primarily voices that seek to uphold the narrative. In other words, it appears the author sought out information to support a preconceived conclusion rather than address, or even consider, opposing perspectives.
Because of the author’s consistent use of sources that support the liberal narrative she is telling with the story, it becomes only “Fair” in its score for reliability. It becomes a key example of an opinion piece, one that discusses the perspective of the author with ample evidence, but, one-sided evidence. As a side note, Biasly does not support or disagree with the perspectives of any article, we simply try to analyze bias.
Selection and Omission Bias
In a less biased, but much shorter, example, “Shoukry says meetings with Chinese, Russian, Indian counterparts explained Egypt’s goals from Security Council session,” Egypt Today provides very few citations or quotations to tell their story. In fact, they only use one, which is a quote from Shoukry stating:
“…these matters have many aspects and complexities that we must bear in mind. There has been an interest in acclamation and in these relations, as well as the existing solidarity to produce fruitful outcomes during the Security Council session.”
Although this comment is intended to explain the meetings for the Security Council, however, readers are left with little information. This is an interesting example of selection and omission bias by Egypt Today because it is a result of its “Center” bias. Often “Center” bias is because of objectivity, while this piece is center strictly due to its limited perspective. Readers do not hear from the other countries, or even other Egyptian politicians, involved. Ultimately, the lack of information may have led to a “Center” bias, but it also results in “Poor” reliability.
Opinion and traditional pieces alike are subject to the limitations of human bias, specifically Selection and Omission bias. Even publications like Egypt Today, known for their generally objective views on Egyptian and world politics, frequently contain moments of such biases. Readers should always be wary of their own media consumption habits and understand the limitations of human error that is present in even the most reliable of sources.
So Is Egypt Today Reliable?
Overall, Egypt Today has a reliability score of “Good.” The articles analyzed today were examples selected to demonstrate the biases that may appear in everyday media consumption and are not exemplary of all of Egypt Today’s content. Many of their articles are in fact, much more reliable and objective than what was presented. It is important to remember that this score is an overall review of their content and that specific articles each have their unique score relevant to their particulars. Understanding bias, including selection and omission bias, will lead to greater media literacy and, in turn, a greater understanding of the world around you. As readers continue in their journey toward truth, Biasly is here to help with its News Bias Checker.