When it comes to consuming news in today’s media landscape, reliability is of paramount importance. News consumers want to trust that the information they’re receiving is accurate, unbiased, and supported by credible sources. In this age of instant information and vast media options, evaluating the dependability of news sources is crucial. Newsbusters.org is no exception to this scrutiny.
The site features articles, blog posts, and videos that analyze and critique media coverage on various issues, particularly those related to politics and public policy. However, NewsBusters.org is known for its conservative alignment. Keeping all this in mind, let’s delve into the reliability and accuracy of the site by examining key aspects that determine its trustworthiness.
Defining Reliability
One should look for specific indicators to gauge the news media’s reliability. Trustworthy sources always refrain from subjective or partisan language, cite credible sources (such as .gov and .edu websites), prioritize primary sources when available, and back their facts and statistics with multiple relevant outside sources without succumbing to selection and omission bias.
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
Assessing Newsbusters.org’s Reliability
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Newsbusters.org’s 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 Newsbusters.org’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:
Newsbusters.org’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Fair,’ which suggests readers can trust some of Newsbusters.org’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.
Newsbusters.org’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 Newsbusters.org’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 Newsbusters.org’s rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.
Analyzing Newsbusters.org’s Accuracy and Reliability
The credibility of news organizations often intertwines with political bias and orientation. Newsbusters.org, as a conservative news blog, has faced allegations of prioritizing its ideological agenda over accuracy. When assessing the reliability of Newsbusters.org’s stories, it’s essential to evaluate how well the publication supports its claims with hard evidence. Furthermore, readers must also be vigilant of selection and omission bias, as both can adversely impact an article’s 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 employs a percentage score to assess accuracy, with 100 being the most accurate and one being the least. The strength of evidence supporting assertions determines ratings, the number of reliable internal and external sources used, and other criteria. Generally, Newsbusters.org’s accuracy rating hovers around 50%, but this can vary from article to article, mainly due to omission and selection bias.
One article authored by Jeffery Lord, titled “Media Ignores Tlaib’s Two Contradictory Flags – Palestine and LGBTQ,” is rated at Very Conservative with an A.I. score of “Fair Reliability,” which falls in line with Newsbusters’ pre-existing reliability ratings. While the article portrays an almost outspoken conservative stance, it focuses on the sins of the “mainstream media” with little to no inclusion of opposing viewpoints or substantive examples from said media. However, the article does include some quotes, albeit from ideologically similar news sites like Townhall and Not the Bee:
“And while it shouldn’t be shocking that she has a Palestinian flag outside her office, the Pride flag in the vicinity makes this a humorous exhibit, a pure contradiction if we ever saw one. Lady, dare we say what happens to the LGBT folks in the West Bank and Gaza?” – Matt Vespa, Townhall.
“She’s gotta be trolling us, right? I’m just saying that maybe Tlaib should try carrying that rainbow flag around Hamas-controlled Gaza and see how it works out for her. Rashida Tlaib and the squad really don’t make any sense. It’s like they’re on a mission to support and insult Hamas all at the same time.” – Not the Bee, cited by Sean Hannity.
The article lacks balance in its sources, primarily featuring the right-wing perspective. Including the viewpoints of the “mainstream media,” the subject of the article’s disparagement, would have provided a more comprehensive view of the issue, enhancing the piece’s reliability.
Analysis of Reliability in Newsbusters.org Opinion Pieces
Opinion-style journalism serves as a platform for reporters to express their viewpoints and beliefs, even though excessive use of opinion can compromise the reliability of a news source. While opinion pieces are inherently subjective, they can offer valuable insights into various political viewpoints.
Newsbusters.org has faced criticism for the reliability of its opinion pieces. It has received accusations of promoting conservative ideologies and individuals to the detriment of accuracy. This habit is particularly evident in an article authored by Tim Graham, titled “Perverse CBS Says DeSantis is the Criminal, Not the Illegal Immigrants.” This piece, presented as reporting and rated with a score of Fair Reliability, contains heavy conservative language and appears more like an op-ed. Such a commitment to a particular political agenda can overshadow the publication of objective and factual information.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
About half the time, Newsbusters.org employs sources of varying degrees of credibility from both sides of the ideological spectrum. However, not all articles meet these standards. For instance, in this one, “ELECTION INTERFERENCE: Nine Big Biden Scandals the Networks Have Hidden,” there are nine quotes, some of which lack credibility because of their origins from less-than-reliable publications, such as the Daily Mail – widely known to report anything inflammatory or scandalous regardless of the facts.
In addition to that, the seven sources these quotes originated from were as follows:
- Joe Biden responding to Steve Doocy in October 2019.
- A New York Post article from October 14, 2020, accusing Hunter Biden of having corrupt business dealings with Ukraine
- A quote from Joe Biden during the 2020 debate with Donald Trump, where Biden talked about Hunter Biden’s role in Burisma and foreign earnings
- An analysis of network coverage regarding the Hunter Biden scandal, describing their dismissive language
- A New York Post piece about Hunter Biden’s business partner, Eric Schwerin, visiting the White House.
- An audio recording found on Hunter Biden’s laptop
- A Daily Mail article about a voicemail from Joe Biden to Hunter Biden
- A letter from the House Oversight Committee
- Another New York Post piece about Joe Biden using “big guy” as an alias in Hunter Biden’s business dealings.
The quotes in the article, sourced from a mix of high-profile and more opinion-based outlets such as the New York Post and the Daily Mail, reflect a range of media perspectives, primarily right-leaning ones.
However, while maintaining a specific editorial bias, this source also showcases credible investigative reporting. One example is the incorporation of direct quotes from Joe Biden, which enhances the immediacy of the narrative.
“I’ve never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings.”
“I have not taken a penny from any foreign source at any point in my life….Nothing was unethical….My son has not made money in….China.”
These statements provide context and primary sources to the article, which elevates its reliability. Moreover, when the article references Hunter Biden’s laptop audio recording, the author notes that Hunter boasted about his relationship with his father:
“He’ll talk about anything that I want him to….[He] thinks I’m a god.”
This quote adds a personal dimension to the claims. Yet, the context of these quotes is crucial for understanding their full implications. For instance, the article mentions a voicemail from Joe Biden to Hunter about Chinese business dealings, which the Daily Mail reported on June 27, 2022. The voicemail allegedly proves Biden spoke to his son about his relationship with someone dubbed the ‘spy chief of China.’ Nonetheless, the article must provide the context surrounding this voicemail, leaving room for interpretation.
While specific dates and detailed accounts support some quotes, others need more background, leading to a mix in the quality of facts presented. The absence of diverse viewpoints and reliance on a narrow range of sources, mostly aligned with conservative ideologies, skew the article’s perspective, reducing its objectivity.
Authors at Newsbusters.org frequently paraphrase information and omit crucial elements that might counter their stance, leading to an incomplete and potentially biased presentation of facts.
Selection and Omission Bias
Like many news sources, Newsbusters.org can fall prey to selection and omission bias in its reporting. In an extreme example, an article by Tim Graham, titled “AP Softens Own Poll: 68% of Americans Think Biden Did Something Illegal or Unethical,” focuses on the bipartisan negative perception of the Biden administration, with the intent to discredit the President and tout the merits of Republican leadership.
“What boggles my mind about this poll is the 33% of respondents who said that Joe Biden ‘did nothing wrong.’ What planet are these people from and do they ever watch anything on television other than reruns of Sex and the City?”
This comment, cited from Jazz Shaw at Hot Air, implies that respondents who believed Biden did nothing wrong are out of touch or misinformed.
Moreover, omission bias is evident with the article failing to acknowledge the similarly bipartisan distaste for the Trump administration, which had a 34% approval rating in January 2021. The omission of these facts does not help NewsBusters’ case, but explaining each point and its reasoning might lend itself more credibility.
Similarly, this article by Tim Graham, “WashPost Hates Cancel Culture When It’s Applied to Leftist Anti-Semites,” cites several instances of disparaging language from political figures who are critical of enabling Israel’s actions in its crusade against Hamas. The author spends most of his time deconstructing these quotes and dismissing them as logically inept:
Ryna Workman:
“Israel bears full responsibility for this tremendous loss of life,” Workman wrote. “This regime of state-sanctioned violence created the conditions that made resistance necessary. I will not condemn Palestinian resistance.”
This quote indicates Workman’s pro-Palestinian viewpoint on the Israel-Gaza conflict, which Graham writes off as Workman having “lost her mind.” Doing so introduces a subjective and dismissive tone that is in line with a conservative bias.
Columnist Philip Bump’s Definition of Cancel Culture:
“It includes columnist Philip Bump defining cancel culture as a sexist-racist thing, “a concept predicated on categorizing particular views as verboten, and those views are often ones that overlap with a sense that Whites and men are imperiled.”
The article criticizes Philip Bump’s definition of cancel culture as a “sexist-racist thing” without providing a counter-argument or engaging with the substance of Bump’s viewpoint. This approach dismisses Bump’s perspective, contributing to a one-sided narrative.
Considering selection and omission bias, the article omits a thorough exploration of liberal viewpoints. As a result, it never presents a balanced analysis of opposing opinions in a bipartisan light, leading to a skewed representation for the reader.
In addition, the author is overly critical in his assessments, diving in with a highly belittling mindset of liberally aligned entities and ideas, such as The Washington Post and cancel culture. This choice on the part of Graham shapes the narrative to fit his unique ideological stance.
So Is Newsbusters.org Reliable?
Newsbusters.org is a semi-reliable news source with a contestable reputation for journalistic integrity. That said, the degree of truthfulness in its publications can vary depending on the specific article. Consumers must remain vigilant and informed about media reliability and accuracy. Tools like Biasly’s News Bias Meter can be invaluable in identifying reliability issues and assisting readers in finding the most accurate and dependable news sources.