According to Biasly, Fox 13 Now has a Center bias and a reliability score of Good. Although these scores are impressive, it is still important to analyze their work to ensure that its news reporting is reliable.
In this study by Pew Research, the significance of online local news is highlighted. Between 2018 and 2024, there is a 9% decrease in the number of Americans who primarily rely on television for local news. In that same time frame, there has been a 3% increase in Americans relying on news websites for local news. Considering Fox 13 Now’s status as a local news network with a large online presence, analyzing its reliability becomes important. In this article, we will examine some of their online articles and dissect the factors that influence the outlet’s reliability.
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 anyway?
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 Fox 13 Now Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Fox 13 Now’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 Fox 13 Now’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:
Fox 13 Now’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Excellent,’ which suggests readers can trust most of Fox 13 Now’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.
Fox 13 Now’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.
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 Fox 13 Now’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 Fox 13 Now’s rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.
Fox 13 Now Accuracy and Reliability
News companies are under constant observation regarding possible pitfalls when it comes to their accuracy and reliability. In a society where misinformation is prevalent, it is important to ensure that the news is accurate and reliable. To better understand the extent of these two factors about the Associated Press’ work, we will focus on accuracy and selection/omission ratings.
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. News sources can vary by article when it comes to their accuracy. A contrast to Fox 13 Now would be CNN. Biasly views them as a Very Liberal news source while having an overall reliability score of Good. One of their articles, “Senate Democratic Leaders Want Members To Hold Firm Against ‘Lethal’ GOP Amendments On Relief Bill” was given a reliability score of Fair. On the other hand, an article titled, “Colorado State Democrats Introduce Three New Gun Measures In Response to Boulder Shooting” has a reliability score of Good. Both articles show that CNN is not consistent with its reliability when reporting news.
In contrast, we can examine an article by Fox 13 Now. “Georgia Election Sites Facing Threats Amid Runoff Vote”, was rated Excellent when it came to reliability. In terms of its bias, it was rated as Center. Justin Boggs explains the backdrop to the runoff election and goes into detail about what threats election sites have been facing. Boggs included quotes and statements from multiple people. Among those were state election manager Gabriel Sterling and the Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office.
“Someone’s going to get hurt. Someone’s going to get shot. Someone’s going to get killed, and it’s not right.”
“Sterling, who said that he and Raffensperger have been the target of violent threats, added that his wife has been receiving threats of sexual violence.”
“Cherokee County Sheriff’s Office disclosed that several emails had been sent to officials there of threats to polling sites.”
These quotes and statements add credibility to Boggs’ reporting. They remove any assumptions the reader could make about the situation. Rather than having readers wondering about the extent and seriousness of threats, Boggs includes the words of Sterling. His statements clearly explain the threats he, his wife, and the polling site have received.
Included accounts of these threats allow the reader to fully understand the scope of the story. It adds to the accuracy and reliability of the article because these are statements from those directly related to the story. In comparison, there is no mention of political figures or pundits who may add possible biases and cause inaccurate reporting. For this reason, it is clear why this article had an Excellent rating when it came to reliability and a Center rating in terms of political bias.
Analysis of Reliability in Fox 13 Now News Pieces
It is important to analyze the reliability of news pieces published by Fox 13 Now because of how important local news is to a community. Although Biasly gave Fox 13 Now a score of “Good” on overall reliability, it will be helpful to examine a few examples and see where Fox 13 Now excels and where improvement can be made.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
Articles can increase their reliability based on the quality of sources and facts that are used.
Additionally, analyzing the number of quotes and the length also influences an article’s perceived reliability. Let’s examine this article: “Fact Check: Rep. Owens on SLC Murders, Police Budget Cuts”. The article serves as a fact check on an interview Utah Representative Burgess Owens did on Fox News. Among the topics discussed were police budgets, crime, and Republican strategy. There was one quote and another mention of what Owens had said in the interview.
“This defund the police, I just want to say it in one word – It’s betrayal. In my city, Salt Lake City, they defunded by 5 million dollars,” Owens said.
“Owens said politicians behind the budget cuts were “heartless,” and that they “couldn’t care care less about the death.”
The number of quotes is far too low for an article. Taking into account that this article is a response to an interview, there should be more quotes. Adding quotes of Owens speaking on these issues would allow the reader to better understand the extent to which Owens was using correct or incorrect information. The author could have written in a quote and then used that as the focal point when discussing statistics that go against what Owens had said in his interview.
Considering the purpose of the article, there were a sufficient number of sources used to counter the inaccurate information that Representative Owens mentioned in his interview. The author used statistics from the Salt Lake City government for crime statistics. To compare the local trend to the national stats, the National Commission on COVID-19 and Criminal Justice was the source of the author’s statistics. When it came to the city budget for spending on police, the author referred back to the Salt Lake City government.
“The city actually cut the budget $3.1 million for fiscal year 2021”
“They conducted a study using homicide rates in 21 major cities, all larger than Salt Lake. Those cities averaged a 29% increase in homicides”
Using hard data from credible sources that have conducted relevant research increases the accuracy and reliability of the article. Furthermore, using these numbers to show how Owens is spreading misinformation shows that the author is trying to correct the narrative rather than agreeing with Owens or using his interview as a way to push another political agenda. Owens provided incorrect statistics about how much the budget was cut while he was correct about homicide rates increasing. However, the author mentions the study to show there may not be a correlation between the cuts and the rates’ increase. The statistics are credible and are used in a context (fact-checking article) in which bias is hard to create. The author does a good job explaining and demonstrating to readers that Owens had exaggerated the extent to which the crime rate and budget cuts had changed in Salt Lake City.
Selection and Omission Bias
For another example, let’s examine an article titled, “Medical Cannabis Advocates Launch Effort To Make It More Affordable For Patients”. The article discusses how advocates for medical cannabis are worried about its affordability. More specifically, these advocates are supporting a new program to help terminally ill and poor patients get affordable medical cannabis.
Much of the article revolves around a conversation with Desiree Hennessy, the executive director of Utah Patients Coalition. All quotes in the article come from Hennessy and talk about supporting initiatives to make medical cannabis more affordable.
“’Am I going to buy food? Or am I going to buy medical cannabis?’ And it wasn’t just one or two patients.”
“We are asking for the community to pitch in.”
“Cannabis is not a cheap medication.”
Focusing mainly on statements made by Desiree Hennessy is a disservice to the reader. She is a clear advocate for expanding access to medical cannabis because she promotes programs that allow those of lower economic backgrounds to buy cannabis. On the other hand, there are no quotes from those who may be against increasing access to medical cannabis or are against price controls on such products. The lack of opinion from the other side can lead to readers’ conclusion that the author is endorsing the program. It brings a left-leaning tilt to the article as well. The legalization of medical cannabis is an initiative supported by the left, at least mostly. Covering multiple perspectives in a balanced manner is preferred in order to give readers the full story when it comes to legislative topics and debates about how to take action.
Although the article does lack a viewpoint from the other side when it comes to discussing policy, it does a good job of including personal narratives to illustrate the problem is significant and needs immediate action.
“I get what I can get when they have deals. I have a certain amount of money I can spend on it,”
“It would help me financially, and maybe just less stress,”
Both quotes came from an interview with Laura Shroyer who was diagnosed with terminal breast cancer. She is one of the patients signing up to be part of Hennessy’s Utah Patient’s Coalition. Her testimony on the struggles of finding affordable medical cannabis provides a well-needed perspective to the story. Its inclusion better helps readers understand the scope of the issue. Furthermore, her endorsement and admission into the program give Hennessy’s initiative credibility as an organization the community can support.
This article shows the good and bad when it comes to selection and omission bias. The author failed to include quotes from those who would be against the initiatives Desiree Hennessy endorses. At the same time, the author excels at adding personal stories from a person who will benefit from an affordable medical cannabis program.
| Article | Sources and Facts | Selection and Omission |
| “Georgia Election Sites Facing Threats Amid Runoff Vote” | ● The information came from figures directly involved ● Quotes from a manager and the sheriff | ● Included perspectives from those receiving the threats and law enforcement taking care of the issue |
| “Fact Check: Rep. Owens on SLC Murders, Police Budget Cuts” | ● Statistics came from reliable sources ● Used numbers to counter misinformation | ● Could have included more quotes from Owens’ interview |
| “Medical Cannabis Advocates Launch Effort To Make It More Affordable For Patients” | ● Interview with the director of the initiative ● Provides direct information about what the program will do | ● Could have added quotes from those who are against expansion ● Added personal story to show the extent and importance of the issue |
So Is Fox 13 Now Reliable?
Fox 13 Now can be considered a mostly reliable news source because it has shown it can be neutral when it comes to news reporting. However, they have shown a tendency to omit viewpoints and not use a preferable amount of quotes. Because of this, using Biasly’s News Bias Checker will assist you with ensuring that the news articles you read are reliable and provide you with correct information.