While very little information about the Daily Republic’s reliability is made accessible to the general public, Biasly has given the outlet a reliability score of ‘Good’. Few organizations have analyzed the Daily Republic’s reliability, so Biasly provides a key insight into the quality of their work. This score can be interpreted in a few different ways– some folks could think it’s high, while others might consider it low. Many would likely view ‘Good’ as being somewhere between unbiased and biased, leaning more towards being unbiased. Let’s take a moment to consider how this percentage lines up against that of other news outlets.
The Daily Republic has a higher reliability percentage than outlets like Fox News and CNN, while boasting roughly the same marks as PBS and NBC News. In fact, after sifting through the Biasly ratings for a wide variety of different outlets, it can be determined that the Daily Republic is above average with its reliability among American news sources. Nonetheless, ‘Good’ isn’t necessarily perfect, and the reliability of the Daily Republic should be thoroughly assessed, regardless of relative reliability in comparison to its counterparts.
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 the Daily Republic Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly assesses an outlet’s trustworthiness in an objective manner and determines how factual they are. The Daily Republic’s overall Reliability Score has been rated as ‘Good’ by Biasly. This rating is calculated using the weighted average of two different scores: the Fact Analysis Score and the Source Analysis Score, each evaluating separate aspects of The Daily Republic’s Reliability. The Fact Analysis Score is more heavily weighted than the Source Analysis Score when calculating the Average Reliability of an article. Below are explanations of the two components:
The Daily Republic’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Good,’ which suggests readers can generally trust the Daily Republic’s content. 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.
The Daily Republic’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.
It’s important to keep in mind that the previously explained averages are just that– averages. This means that one article could be completely trustworthy while another could be very untrustworthy. The general reliability of the Daily Republic varies on an article-by-article basis, as it would for any outlet. The averages have been supplied to gauge a broader sense of their trustworthiness.
Daily Republic Accuracy and Reliability
Speculation about news outlets is ubiquitous. Time and time again, we’ve heard people credibility accuse Fox News of having a conservative bias, while others reasonably take note of MSNBC’s liberal bias. The Daily Republic is a bit different, though. Because this outlet is based in Fairfield, California, a large portion of its articles are catered to residents of the Golden State.
This means that it attracts an audience primarily made up of California residents, limiting its scope of appeal. This limited appeal results in less discourse about the paper, and less speculation about any perceived bias. There aren’t widespread allegations of liberal or conservative bias against the Daily Republic.
To determine if a high-reliability rating is justified, we can evaluate how well the publication supports assertions with evidence on an article-to-article basis. It’s important to look for any potential selection and omission bias as we assess the articles’ overall 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. These concepts will be elaborated upon later in one of the preceding sections.
Biasly rates a variety of different articles from every outlet that they’ve analyzed, looking into the author bias and overall accuracy of each piece. Each article has a reliability score calculated, and in the case of the Daily Republic, scores vary from article to article. Variations in reliability usually stem from bias, most notably omission and selection bias. Let’s take a look at such variations between articles from one outlet.
With the Daily Republic, we see a reliability score that might initially indicate consistency. Upon a closer look though, it becomes apparent that this score fluctuates from one article to another. While the Daily Republic is considered to be overall generally reliable, some individual articles have a higher or lower reliability score than that of the outlet’s average. One article, entitled “The Right Stuff: Where is the truth in our politics?” was given a reliability rating of ‘Fair’ by Biasly. Take a look at the following excerpt from the article:
“Joe Biden advertised a serious untruth when he complained that the new Georgia voting law would close polls at 5 p.m. while the Georgia law says 8 p.m.”
One issue here impacting the reliability of this article could be the author’s failure to back up a claim that he made. He makes an assertion about the details of a Georgia law but doesn’t actually cite the law or elaborate on it. While he may be correct in his claim, he can still boost the overall reliability of his work by proving that he’s correct, rather than assuming we’ll take his claim seriously without a source.
A different article, entitled “Boating activity climbs during the pandemic, boating fatalities up 25%” was given a nearly perfect reliability rating. There are also differences between ratings of author bias and analysis bias scores, which contribute to the turbulent nature of some article collections. This is standard for any newspaper or outlet and doesn’t indicate an issue. Rather, it highlights the complexity of some averages and shows that the articles of the Daily Republic are not a monolith.
There are only a few Daily Republic articles that Biasly flagged for selection or omission bias. The vast majority of the articles that were assessed earned themselves a score of zero in that category, with a few exceptions. Let’s take a look at one of those exceptions. The article– which was mentioned earlier– is entitled “The Right Stuff: Where is the truth in our politics?.” It has the highest possible selection/omission bias rating, indicating quite a bit of conservative bias and a pattern of omitting certain information while exclusively including other information.
Biasly notes that in this article, “information is selected to appear that only Democrats lie in politics,” further advancing the claim of right-leaning bias. Of course, this article is an outlier, not the standard. Most articles from the Daily Republic don’t have a high rating for this particular category, suggesting that the outlet is overall trustworthy and reliable.
Analysis of Reliability in the Daily Republic’s Opinion Pieces
Opinion pieces will always be subjective– it’s in their very nature. They’re meant to convey opinions, so if the author is discussing a political belief, some level of partisanship will likely be on display. No matter your own political beliefs, opinion pieces can be beneficial to read as they convey important viewpoints on certain topics. Even if you disagree with what you’re reading, it might be worth considering an opposing point of view. The Daily Republic hasn’t been known to significantly lean one way or another when it comes to their opinion pieces, but it’s still important to evaluate the quality of their work and keep an eye open for any potential bias.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
It’s nearly impossible to access the Daily Republic’s articles without getting past their paywall, but one article was evaluated for its use of sources. This article was published on May 30th, 2024, making it incredibly recent. It’s titled: “Donald Trump guilty, convicted of hush money scheme in historic verdict”. The only source that was explicitly referenced got its mention at the end of the article.
- New York Daily News
The Daily Republic seemed to reference the New York Daily News, an outlet that’s based in Jersey City, New Jersey (just a few miles from New York City). This outlet has been rated ‘Somewhat Liberal’ by Biasly, with ‘Fair’ reliability.
It would be wise for the Daily Republic to reference a wider variety of sources, which could help boost the credibility of their assertions. Because the Daily Republic is otherwise rated quite well, there shouldn’t be much scrutiny over this. Their high reliability rating indicates a selection of trustworthy sources overall.
Another article highlights the Daily Republic’s interest in using interviewees as sole sources for a piece. While discussing the September 11th terrorist attack, the author consistently turns to Louis Briscese as a direct source to recount the events of that day. He doesn’t reference any other external sources besides Briscese throughout the article.
Selection and Omission Bias
Looking back at the Trump guilty verdict story, let’s evaluate whether or not there’s selection or omission bias impacting the overall reliability of the work. You might look at the use of quotes– more specifically who the quotes are coming from– to identify any potential red flags.
For example, if the author was covering a two-sided dispute but was choosing to include one side’s perspective while deliberately leaving out the others, we would take note of the selection and omission bias. Below are two different excerpts from the article that cover differing perspectives on Trump’s trial.
“‘A lot of people say this: Who cares? Who cares if Mr. Trump slept with a porn star 10 years before the 2016 election? Plenty of people feel that way, as I said. But it’s harder to say that the American people don’t have the right to decide for themselves whether they care or not, that a handful of people sitting in a room can decide what information gets into those voters’ hands,’ Steinglass said” (representing the prosecution).
“Defense attorney Todd Blanche, in his final statements to the jury, denied the existence of the ‘catch and kill’ scheme to influence the election or that his client knew about internal bookkeeping practices at the Trump Organization.‘There is no other way to categorize an invoice from a lawyer to President Trump than to call it a legal expense. The Government has criminalized that, has said that that was a crime … That’s absurd. It’s not a crime,’ Blanche said” (representing the defense).
The use of these quotes indicate that the article is committed to sharing both sides of the story, with no intention of amplifying one over the other. Had the first excerpt existed without the second, or the second without the first, we could easily flag this article for selection or omission bias to a certain extent.
Yet because the author included input from both sides– something that is only fair when covering a legal dispute– there is no notable bias to dissect. Furthermore, the author used quotes that corresponded to each other, highlighting the main arguments of both the prosecution and the defense.
Not every article from the Daily Republic is free of selection or omission bias. The same can be argued about articles from other outlets, no matter how reliable that outlet is overall. As stated earlier, the majority of Daily Republic articles assessed by Biasly were found to have no selection or omission bias. There were exceptions, but this is typical of any newspaper. It is safe to say that the Daily Republic doesn’t have an issue with this particular type of bias, despite occasional outliers that could tell a different story.
So Is the Daily Republic Reliable?
To conclude, the Daily Republic can be considered a fairly reliable source based on a variety of different metrics, all of which have been elaborated upon in the above writing. In short, their high reliability score, in addition to a high fact analysis score and moderate source analysis score, indicates strong reliability overall. Furthermore, the outlet doesn’t have any noticeable red flags connected to selection or omission bias by our team. Admittedly, the Daily Republic hasn’t earned perfect marks, but it’s worth noting that this would be a hard feat for any outlet to achieve, and their current score puts them alongside reputable sources like PBS at the top of media reliability. In general, readers can trust the Daily Republic. They are mostly a reliable source.