Is Quartz Media Reliable?

Quartz Media is a news outlet that mainly reports on international business affairs and the global economy. It has not amassed as many visitors as other news sites due to its late start in the industry, but this does not reflect the level of credibility found within its articles.

Quartz has a mixed reputation in the eyes of the public, especially as its audience has dwindled since 2019. Despite this, the group has been known for its centrality in its discussion of current events and business. This increases its reliability, which is enforced by the diverse number of sources and quotes. These elements will be observed in greater detail below.

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

How does Quartz Media fare in its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Quartz Media’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Excellent’ 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 Quartz’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:

Quartz’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Excellent,’ which suggests readers can trust the majority of Quartz Media’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.

Quartz’s Source Analysis Score is ‘Good,’ which suggests readers can trust most 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.

It must be kept in mind that, because these scores rely on percentages and averages, credibility will vary between each article. Trustworthiness changes based on authors, context, the current political climate, and so on. We will analyze several articles found on Quartz’s website to further establish reliability levels.

Quartz Media Accuracy and Reliability

The reliability of news organizations is largely affected by the inclusion of political bias. That being said, Quartz has been rated “Center-Left” by Biasly, which is supported by their objective reporting and lack of a significant political tilt. As we examine their reporting, we will look for selection and omission bias and how they influence an article’s credibility.

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 determines a source’s ratings by considering the evidence provided in an article, as well as the number of reliable internal and external sources incorporated. Biasly includes in-depth breakdowns of dependability and accuracy ratings for several Quartz articles.

There are other well-known sources that also focus on economic news, such as The Economist. Biasly rates this source as “Center,” similarly to Quartz, with an overall “Good” reliability score. The Economist focuses on other issues, such as pressing international and political concerns. One such article is “In its latest abortion case the Supreme Court seems to back Idaho,” which focuses on legislation under current debate in Idaho that surrounds access to abortion procedures. This piece is given a “Poor” reliability score, mostly because it lacks quotes and details from opposite and unique sources. On the other hand, there are reports that have high credibility scores, such as “Biden signs aid bill; Arizona House passes repeal of abortion ban,” which is given a “Fair” reliability rating, with “Excellent” scores for the inclusion of multiple quotes and sources. It needs references to opposite sources but is still seen as more trustworthy than the previous article. One of their economic reports, “America’s interest rates are unlikely to fall this year,” is also rated as “Fair,” expressing that different news sources, and even various articles within those sources, will have unique ratings and biases. Organizations that report on similar subject matters, such as the global economy, will be subject to separate levels of credibility.

Observing Quartz Media, the first article we will be looking at is “Disney appeals dismissal of free speech lawsuit as DeSantis says company should ‘move on ’,” by Mike Schneider. Biasly’s News Check Chrome Extension gave this article a “Good” source analysis score. This asserts that the information in this piece is fairly credible. However, there is still a degree of bias that needs to be considered. The author is describing legislation proposed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and passed by the Republican-controlled Legislature that would change command of the Disney World governing district. Selection bias is found in subtle ways, such as when Schneider writes about a law that was opposed by Disney:

“The 2022 law banned classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades and was championed by DeSantis, who had used Disney as a punching bag in speeches on the campaign trail until he recently suspended his campaign for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination.”

The diction used to describe this law can be considered inflammatory, seen especially through the image of DeSantis using Disney as a “punching bag.” There are other instances that seem to criticize the governor’s motives rather than plainly state his objectives. At the same time, there are details that might prove contrary, such as the quote from Martin Garica, chairman of the district’s board.

“These shameful litigation tactics are costing the district unnecessary legal expenses.”

The language here is also provocative, with words such as “shameful” and “unnecessary.” It is clear that the author is attempting to portray both sides of the argument with as little selection bias as possible. Concerning omission bias, the article does not focus on DeSantis as much as one would expect, with only one of his quotes referenced.

“They were wrong and we were right… They should move on.”

This is relevant because of the absence of a detailed account of DeSantis’s views on the court case. The author focuses on many other individuals who, while stating interesting opinions, may not be as crucial to the situation.

In contrast to the aforementioned, there are articles found on Quartz that do not exhibit selection and omission bias. For example, Virginia considers a major expansion of gambling by legalizing ‘skill games’,” by Sarah Rankin. The coverage of Virginia’s possible gambling expansion is presented simply, with quotes from several angles that make the story impartial. Aaron Rouse, the VA state senator, is not depicted in a positive or negative light, allowing the reader to form their own opinions and reach their own conclusions. Biasly’s Chrome Extension supports this analysis with a “Good” source analysis score.

Analysis of Reliability in Quartz Online Articles

Opinion pieces provide an avenue for authors to express personal views in their writing. Due to their subjective nature, these pieces often lack the same level of credibility as other reports. Quartz Media, unlike other popular sources, does not have a separate opinion column on its webpage. This makes it more difficult to distinguish between belief and fact. With that in mind, Quartz is largely successful in keeping its articles objective and unbiased.

Quality of Sources and Facts Used

As stated previously, Quartz does not have a distinct opinion column. Most of their articles are written in an objective and factual manner, increasing the credibility of the information. Given this unique circumstance, we cannot observe opinion pieces in the same way as is typically done by Biasly. Instead, we will continue to observe the reliability of Quartz’s reports, especially in regard to the number of quotes and quote length, as well as the number and variety of sources referenced.

The first article we will look at is “New US-China talks will address a top American complaint about Beijing’s economic model, Yellen says,” by Fatima Hussein and Ken Moritsugu, which focuses on current attempts at balanced economic growth between China and the United States. The report’s reliability is deemed “Excellent” by Biasly’s Chrome Extension. It includes two short quotes and three medium quotes from the following sources:

S. Treasury Secretary Janet Yellen
Xinhua (China’s official news agency)

While there are limited quotes provided in the article, they do well to objectively represent both American and Chinese perspectives. For example, one quote from Yellen reads:

“I think the Chinese realize how concerned we are about the implications of their industrial strategy for the United States, for the potential to flood our markets with exports that make it difficult for American firms to compete.”

On the other hand, a quote from Xinhua states:

“Talking up ‘Chinese overcapacity’ in the clean energy sector also smacks of creating a pretext for rolling out more protectionist policies to shield U.S. companies.”

These excerpts compare the pros and cons of a new economic agenda as stated by opposing authorities. It would have been beneficial to include quotes from more U.S. officials for further details, as well as others managing economic relations in China. In terms of unique sources, the article is rated as “Fair,” as it only references AP News (Somewhat Liberal), the U.S. Department of the Treasury, and Xinhua. A balanced report would include links to reports from a greater variety of news sources, perhaps from different sides of the political spectrum. Despite these things, the article remained informative and unbiased, which confirms Quartz’s central rating.

Not every article is rated as highly as the previous one. For example, “Big Oil suddenly likes Joe Biden and his ‘pragmatic approach’,” by Melvin Backman is generally rated as “Fair,” but is lacking in the number and length of quotes, as well as in the inclusion of opposite and unique sources. There were only two quotes in this report: two short statements from ExxonMobil CEO Darren Woods, and one from Interior Secretary Deb Haaland. Perspectives from President Biden or other representatives of “Big Oil” were not included. The sources referenced were primarily other Quartz articles, with the exception of one link to The Wall Street Journal (leans left).

Selection and Omission Bias

To reiterate, there aren’t many clear examples of selection and omission bias in Quartz Media’s articles. They take care to remain impartial and provide factual frameworks of current issues. They choose not to focus too heavily on politics and do not include opinions surrounding prominent political figures. This enforces their credibility and reduces the amount of ideological bias found in their reports. The information selected is meant to highlight crucial economic developments, while only inconsequential details are omitted.