Vanity Fair first opened its doors in Manhattan in 1859, with three major components: a humor piece published weekly, an outlet for British satire and caricatures, and a third issue following the developments of the American theater. This magazine’s lighthearted beginnings evolved into the tabloid it became known for in the 1980s, and the brand kept that image into the 1990s, even as they began to cover international news.
Considering its reputation, the publication at Vanity Fair is not always inaccurate. It has been praised for doing an excellent job of posting some articles that are not erroneous or biased. Is Vanity Fair as wrought with bias and a lack of trustworthiness as people believe? At Biasly, we endeavor to evaluate the accuracy and dependability of all media outlets. Let us investigate the reliability and accuracy of Vanity Fair.
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 Vanity Fair Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assessed news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Vanity Fair’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 Vanity Fair’s Reliability. When computing the Average Reliability of the article the Fact Analysis score is more heavily weighted, and while Biasly has yet to issue a Fact Analysis score, Vanity Fair’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.
However, since this score is 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 Vanity Fair’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 Vanity Fair’s bias and reliability rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.
Vanity Fair’s Accuracy and Reliability
The credibility of news organizations is significantly impacted by bias and political orientation. Like numerous other media organizations, Vanity Fair has occasionally been accused of prioritizing the liberal agenda above facts. We can evaluate the integrity of Vanity Fair’s news stories and deduce how well the publication supports assertions with evidence, and see whether this is indeed the case. 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 Vanity Fair news stories. As we previously stated, according to the reports analytics have assessed, Vanity Fair has a Good reliability score. This score can vary from article to article, though, and the most extreme variations in dependability are caused by bias, notably omission, and selection bias. Consider also, Artnet News, which has a “Center” Bias and a “Fair” analyst reliability score according to Biasly. For example, they had one article that had an “Good” reliability score titled “Parthenon Marbles Feud Erupts Between U.K. and Greek Leaders” and another article called, “President Biden Has Designated One Million Acres of Arizona Land a New National Monument, Protecting the Region from Mining | Artnet News”, that had a “Fair” reliability score. As a result, stories displaying political leaning are less reliable than neutral ones.
For instance, this Vanity Fair article titled, “Melania Trump Says Women Should Be Able to Make Their Own Decisions About Abortion, a Right Her Husband Helped Take Away From Millions“, is rated as Somewhat Conservative, primarily through selection and omission of perspectives. The author highlights Melania Trump’s pro-choice quotes but fails to provide viewpoints from pro-life advocates or members of the Republican Party, leading to an unbalanced portrayal of the abortion debate. Additionally, while the article extensively cites Melania’s criticism of restrictive abortion policies, it omits any mention of arguments supporting the overturning of Roe v. Wade, such as the perspective that returning the decision to the states allows for more democratic processes. The author writes:
“The overturning of Roe led to extreme or total abortion bans in numerous states, where some women have died as a result,”
Terms like “extreme or total” imply harshness without acknowledging the reasoning behind these bans. Additionally, mentioning women dying as a result lacks specific examples or data, emphasizing negative consequences without presenting arguments from supporters of these policies, such as protecting fetal life or allowing states to decide. This one-sided portrayal adds to the article’s liberal bias.
We will take a closer look at more examples like this below, providing a further investigation into the reliability of Vanity Fair’s articles. This will include its use of selection bias, omission bias, and the quality of its sources and facts used.
Analysis of Reliability in Vanity Fair’s Online News Articles
Vanity Fair’s online news articles, while typically adopting a more casual and interactive approach compared to traditional news outlets, aim at providing standard, objective reporting. While they may occasionally lean towards a particular ideology, it’s essential to distinguish their regular online news content from their opinion pieces. It’s when these lines blur that the credibility of information can come into question.
In the past, Vanity Fair has faced controversy over its coverage, particularly in relation to its critical portrayal of Donald Trump. The article, “New Details of Trump’s Election Subversion Scheme Should Be a Warning For Americans This November“, highlights negative details about Trump’s actions, such as his alleged response of “so what?” regarding his vice president’s safety, without presenting any potential justifications or counter-arguments from Trump or his supporters. This selective focus emphasizes damning evidence while omitting other perspectives or explanations that could provide a more balanced view. It underscores the ongoing challenge in digital journalism to maintain credibility while engaging diverse reader bases with differing political views. Typical online news articles are devoid of opinion and leanings from the author, but occasionally, and depending on the news source, they may exist.
Quality of Sources and Facts Used
Vanity Fair 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, think about, “JD Vance Refuses to Admit Trump Lost the 2020 Election And Suggests He and Trump Will Break Up Families Through Mass Deportations“. In this article from Bess Levin, she only used 7 quotes. Of those 7 quotes, five of them are short, one of them is medium-length, and one is a long quote. Longer quotes can indicate higher reliability if the source is reputable.
In addition to that, the author’s 4 sources for the article were as follows:
- JD Vance – When he discusses the debate topics and his perspectives, specifically regarding abortion and the January 6 events. (Conservative-leaning)
- Moderator Margaret Brennan – Who asked the question about deportation during the debate.
- CNN report – Cited for Vance’s past comment on abortion. (Liberal-leaning)
- Tim Walz – His opponent in the debate, who commented on Vance’s non-answer about the 2020 election results. (Liberal-leaning)
The article uses four unique sources: JD Vance, Margaret Brennan, CNN, and Tim Walz. However, most of these sources revolve around Vance’s own statements or interactions from the debate, rather than a wide array of diverse voices. There is a limited diversity of sources. Most of the sources are directly tied to the debate (Vance, Walz, and Brennan). CNN, which is considered a liberal-leaning outlet, is the only external media source cited, and it provides a past quote from Vance. The article is accurate to the event overall but leaves out the contested aspects of the plan. To give them credit the article is indeed liberal but not excessively so.
The article from above, Melania Trump Says Women Should Be Able to Make Their Own Decisions About Abortion, a Right Her Husband Helped Take Away From Millions, contains several instances of selection and omission bias, which contribute to its overall liberal slant.
“This woman has been complicit in her husband’s nightmare reign and bigotry, and now she wants to help put a glossy, softened sheen on his anti-abortion extremism.”
This sentence demonstrates bias by selectively presenting only a critical perspective of Melania Trump’s actions and intentions, without considering possible alternative motives or acknowledging her potential independence in expressing pro-choice views. This selective framing prevents a balanced portrayal of her stance.
The article further exhibits omission bias by excluding potential positive aspects of Trump’s abortion policies, such as arguments that overturning Roe v. Wade allowed states to decide abortion laws through local processes. Additionally, it only features Jessica Valenti’s criticism of Melania’s timing, without including any supportive perspectives. The framing of Melania’s memoir as an attempt to soften her husband’s extremism ignores other possible motivations, while hyperbolic language like “Handmaid’s Tale–level dangerous” reinforces a negative portrayal of Trump without presenting balanced arguments. These biases create an incomplete and one-sided narrative.
Selection and Omission Bias
Another article from Vanity Fair, “Republicans Don’t Believe in Climate Change — and Democrats Should Take It More Seriously“, has a more centrist leaning by offering a balanced presentation of perspectives and critiquing both sides. It discusses JD Vance’s dismissal of climate change as “weird science” but also acknowledges his slight progress by considering emissions-driven climate change, avoiding an overly negative portrayal. Similarly, while Tim Walz is praised for taking climate change seriously, the article critiques his “all above” energy policy as insufficient, highlighting that Democrats may not treat the issue with enough urgency. By addressing other pressing issues like abortion rights and international crises, the article avoids overemphasizing climate change, and while it relies on factual reporting without excessively hyperbolic language, focusing on climate change at all is still indicative of a slightly left-leaning slant.
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 adequate relevant background and information that may contradict the author’s position. As a news organization with a liberal slant, Vanity Fair has a small incentive to continue appealing to liberal viewpoints to maintain the interests of its sizable left-wing readership. But now that we’ve enumerated typical trustworthiness indications, you may stay current by keeping yourself informed on the most accurate news.
So Is Vanity Fair Reliable?
Finally, it can be argued that Vanity Fair is a semi-reliable news source with an adequate reputation for journalistic integrity, and some lone exceptions, therefore 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.