In July 1947, Foreign Affairs made its way into public consciousness with the ‘X article.’, titled “The Sources of Soviet Conduct.”. This article was written by George F. Kennan and anonymously published under the pseudonym “X.” During the Cold War, Kennan served as the U.S. Ambassador to Moscow, and in this historic article, he outlined what would become America’s Soviet containment policy.
Since then, Foreign Affairs has become well-regarded as a reliable source of information from public officials and academics on matters of international diplomacy. But is this label deserved? At Biasly, we endeavor to evaluate the accuracy and dependability of all media outlets. In this post, we will explore the reliability and accuracy of Foreign Affairs.
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 Foreign Affairs Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Foreign Affairs’ overall Reliability Score has been rated as Fair 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 Foreign Affairs’ 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:
Foreign Affairs’ Fact Analysis Score is N/A, which reflects that Biasly’s analysts have not yet evaluated this media source. 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.
Foreign Affairs’ 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.
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 Foreign Affairs’ reliability is mostly, but not all, factual.
Let us analyze the supporting data for Foreign Affairs’ rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.
Foreign Affairs Accuracy and Reliability
The credibility of news organizations is significantly impacted by bias and political orientation. We can evaluate the integrity of Foreign Affairs’ 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 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.
Biasly assigns a percentage score to accuracy, with one being the least accurate and 100 being the most. Ratings are calculated by weighing assertions with supporting evidence, the number of reliable internal sources, and the number of reliable external sources employed. A full page at Biasly’s website includes dependability and accuracy ratings for newly released Foreign Affairs news stories. As previously stated, according to the reports that analytics have assessed, Foreign Affairs has a Fair reliability score. This score can vary from article to article, though, and the most extreme variations in dependability are caused by omission and selection bias.
Consider the article, “Extend the Cease-Fire in Gaza—but Don’t Stop There.” As made clear by the title, this article from Foreign Affairs is in support of a ceasefire in Gaza and asserts that the United States has a responsibility to end the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, and it only includes sources in support of American commitment to aiding Gaza. However, “How Will the IDF Handle Urban Combat?,” also published by Foreign Affairs, is an article that paints Hamas as an enemy to be dealt with through violence. The authors omit any pro-ceasefire sources to jump straight to how the Israeli Defense Forces should continue to invade Gaza.
This Foreign Affairs article titled “The New Way to Fight Climate Change” is rated as close to center. The article’s goal is to set the stage for the annual United Nations Framework Convention on Climate Change (UNFCCC). Concerning the selection and omission bias, the authors only include points of the same opinion, which is that global consensus is unnecessary and unproductive in the fight against climate change. The article only showcases examples of productive work that were the result of small-scale cooperation while dismissing global consensus efforts:
“Many activists and some governments have begun to adopt a new theory of climate collaboration that avoids seeking consensus across all the nations—nearly always a recipe for the lowest and slowest common denominator.”
“Notably, none of these private or public programs were developed through the global consensus process. Instead, they emerged independently.”
The article portrays a slight center-right stance, in part due to its criticism of the Paris Agreement, which the authors describe as impractical and reflective of an outdated system. The authors also express a lack of faith in UNFCCC, predicting that “activists could write off the whole process as a failure.” However, the authors fail to balance their sources. If they had highlighted examples of successful global consensus or explained why it is the most prominent approach for fighting climate change, they could provide a more holistic view of the issue. Therefore, this article can be considered mostly reliable.
We will take a closer look at more examples like this below, providing a further investigation into the reliability of Foreign Affairs’ articles. This will include examining the magazine’s use of selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of its sources and facts used.
Analysis of Reliability in Foreign Affairs’ Online Opinion Articles
Foreign Affairs does not claim to be a news or reporting outlet. Rather, the magazine aims to give various opinions a platform to be heard, and “technical articles will be left to more special magazines.” (https://www.foreignaffairs.com/about-foreign-affairs) Because of this, we can expect Foreign Affairs’ articles to include strong personal views, but nonetheless, these articles should still be held to a reliability standard.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
Foreign Affairs can be good at using reliable sources from both sides of the ideological divide and citing facts as evidence. However, this is not the case for every article. For instance, consider the article “Fish Wars.” This article from Sarah Glaser and Tim Gallaudet does not include any quotes. Instead, the authors highlight their individual opinions and occasionally intersperse this with research data. For example, the authors begin the article by illustrating the scarcity of fish as a resource:
“But although they may fly under the radar, disputes over fisheries have the potential to turn into larger conflicts and to exacerbate existing ones, just as disputes over oil, water, and grain have done in the past. Fisheries are finite natural resources that provide sustenance to billions of people; seafood constitutes nearly one-fifth of global consumption of animal protein.”
In this excerpt, the authors are providing their biased opinion on how fisheries are overlooked as potential sites of conflict and suggest that stronger ocean governance policies need to be enforced. However, it supports this assertion with a statistic without a source, which makes it hard to verify and therefore less reliable.
The authors cite only three sources:
- An October 2023 investigation in The New Yorker (liberal-leaning)
- Researchers at The College of William and Mary
- Analysis by World Wildlife Fund
The number of sources used is poor, and overall credibility appears to be the biggest problem, as many sources are unnamed. The authors include the following statistics, which they add emphasis to through the article’s formatting, without any sources:
“Nearly 40 percent of global stocks are overfished.”
“Rising ocean temperatures alone are expected to push nearly one in four local fish populations to cross an international boundary in the coming decade.”
“Ocean issues, including fisheries, protected areas, and marine science, have received less than one percent of global philanthropic funding since 2009, and government investments in ocean science have been declining for decades.”
“But the frequency of confrontation over fishery resources has increased 20-fold since 1970.”
The article does a fine job of illustrating the importance of the fishing industry, how their geopolitical value is undervalued internationally, and ideas for improving ocean governance. Additionally, the article is not extremely liberal or conservative. Of the three named sources, one is liberal, and two are center, which makes for an overall center-left leaning of the sources.
However, the authors repeatedly neglect to cite their sources for crucial pieces of evidence, which weakens the quality and trustworthiness of the article. In addition, the fact quality of this article leaves room for improvement. The fact that “nearly 40 percent of global stocks are overfished” is an oversimplified statement that does not give proper context. In a research article published by Our World in Data titled “Fish and Overfishing,” authors Hannah Ritchie and Max Roser write:
“One-third (34%) of assessed global fish stocks were overfished in 2017. However, 60% were maximally fished, and 6% were underfished.”
This includes a precise statistic with a date, a breakdown of the numbers, and definitions of key terms in a prior paragraph. This highlights the shortcomings of “Fish Wars” in terms of the quality of facts.
Selection and Omission Bias
In a more extreme example from Foreign Affairs, we can see an author portray disapproval of the French National Rally and Emmanuel Macron’s decision to call a snap election. The article, “How France Fell to the Far Right” by Cécile Alduy, focuses on the imminent danger of the French far-right and the prior damage they have caused. The article includes only one short quote, which is from the head of the National Rally Jordan Bardella:
On election night, he invoked national unity, presenting himself as “respectful of all, open to dialogue, protector of your rights, liberties, and the republican motto ‘Liberté, égalité, fraternité.’”
However, this is not evidence of positive bias for Bardella, as the author follows with, “But Bardella is none of those things.” Alduy continuously deploys extreme language that disparages the far-right. This quote encapsulates Alduy’s clear opinions on the National Rally:
“It remains a discriminatory, bent on taking away rights from immigrants and their children. Regardless of its final margin in Monday’s runoffs, it will do everything in its power to make France less global, less democratic, and more hostile to any resident who does not have French ancestors.”
Throughout the article, the author calls attention to Jean-Marie Le Pen’s history of anti-Semetic language, highlights Bardella’s proposed measures that are discriminatory against immigrants, and draws attention to National Rally supporters’ racist and homophobic assaults that the party leaders deny having fueled. While these statements are true and accurate, they all supply facts that try to persuade the reader of a liberal mindset by villainizing conservatives. This article does not include any sources in support of the French far-right, which makes it unbalanced and heavily biased.
In the article we discussed earlier, “Fish Wars,” the authors omit any comments from experts who do not view fisheries as potential sites of conflict. They refuse to include the perspective of those who are against increased ocean governance and try to portray the issue from only one point-of-view that advocates for new policies, which reduces their reliability. By omitting contradictory points of view, the authors made this article more biased.
In opinion pieces, issues with factuality, sources, selection, and omission are frequently present. The articles we’ve covered so far are mostly biased and exclude evidence that may contradict the authors’ position. But now that we’ve enumerated typical trustworthiness indications, you may stay current by keeping yourself informed on the most accurate news.
So Is Foreign Affairs Reliable?
Finally, it can be argued that Foreign Affairs is a somewhat reliable news source with an adequate reputation for journalistic integrity, but the degree of truth in its publications fluctuates. 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 and dependable news.