Jezebel News: Are They Reliable?

Any new visitor to Jezebel’s website may quickly pick up on the type of articles that Jezebel is best known for. The women-targeted online magazine specializes in “toothy” reporting that could include opinions, satire, and raw commentary at any given point within an article. While most people may not rely on Jezebel as a main news source, the website attracts more than 37 million views each month. So, that being said, just how reliable is Jezebel?

When a news source isn’t centered around orthodox fact-and-repeat reporting, it can be a more nuanced issue to judge the reliability of its actual contents. Jezebel offers a very intrepid and in their own words, “toothy” commentary in addition to the actual news they’re reporting on. The traditional metric of reliability in terms of being judged by the authenticity of what is framed to be a fact matters and applies to magazines like Jezebel as well, but how about the commentary? The answer is found in analyzing various metrics of reliability, a big one of which is framing. Framing, framing, framing – including opinion, satire, and commentary can leave your article completely reliable as long as it’s framed as those things. Framing is a big reason why opinion articles need to include a disclaimer that they are opinions and won’t try to present their information as fact but rather disclose their following information as subjective. Does Jezebel maintain this standard? How does Biasly rate Jezebel in terms of reliability? Does it matter? We’ll begin the analysis 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

So How Does Jezebel Fare in its Reliability?

The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. Jezebel’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 the Jezebel’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:

Jezebel’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Good,’ which suggests readers can trust most of Jezebel’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.

Jezebel’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 Jezebel 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 Jezebel rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.

Jezebel Accuracy and Reliability

Of the many factors that influence reliability, bias is perhaps the most potent. Bias is not a unifaceted issue and can, unfortunately, be expressed in a multitude of modalities. Even if a news source only reports objectively true facts and stories, if they’re only reporting from the perspective of one side, they cannot be seen as credible and therefore reliable. This would lead to a confirmation and selection bias in their reporting and their readers would likely take on this bias especially if their news sources are not varied or multiple. Of the many, two of the most common kinds of biases we can observe in journalism and fact-based reporting are selection bias and omission bias.

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 Jezebel news stories. As we previously stated, according to the reports analytics have assessed, Jezebel 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.

In Jezebel article titled, “Brittney Griner Testifies in Court That Her Rights Were Never Read to Her” Biasly rated it Very Liberal. What kind of bias can we observe in the article? The answer can once again be summed up with framing. Here the author, Emily Leibert, uses a sympathetic tone when discussing Griner’s case and even includes the word “nightmare” which carries considerable weight.

Additionally, we can observe the framing of Griner’s Detention: The article consistently refers to Griner as a “political hostage” and discusses her as a victim of the Russian legal system, a narrative that aligns with the stance taken by the U.S. government and many human rights organizations. While this framing is backed by the fact that the U.S. officially considers her detention wrongful, the term “political hostage” can imply a specific perspective on the nature of her arrest and the motivations behind it, which could be seen as presenting a particular viewpoint on the case. Below are a few examples:

“There are currently no estimates for how long the trial will run, but a court extended Griner’s detention through at least Dec. 20. Her nightmare continues.”

“Griner… told the courtroom at Khimki District Court that no one explained her rights to her at the time of her detention, as she was entrenched in a confusing foreign judicial system that offered little to no support or guidance.”

“Brittney Griner, the WNBA star and political hostage who has been wrongfully detained in Russia for over five months…”

As this article exemplifies, factual-based reporting is not enough to render a news source credible and reliable. Closer analysis of a source and its subsequent articles can have a huge impact depending on how much bias is present and what is selectively reported or selectively omitted. Jezebel and the author of the above article could have delivered a more well-rounded analysis of Griner’s case, perhaps including other testimonies.

Analysis of Reliability in Jezebel’s Online News Articles

Jezebel is a well-known publication that often covers social justice, politics, and current events with a focus on women’s issues and advocacy. While Jezebel has a distinct editorial voice, it generally adheres to reputable sources when reporting on current events, especially when discussing high-profile matters like Griner’s case.

The article, “Brittney Griner Testifies in Court That Her Rights Were Never Read to Her”, appears to be a factual recounting of Brittney Griner’s testimony and her legal situation in Russia. The article draws from reputable sources, including the New York Times, Reuters, and AP, which are known for their journalistic integrity. It also provides a detailed narrative of Griner’s legal troubles and testimony, incorporating relevant information about her legal defense, her statements in court, and her personal situation. Below are some of the sources mentioned in Jezebel’s article and their prevalence to the article.

1. The New York Times: This source is referenced when discussing Griner’s court testimony and her legal defense strategy. It provides context about Griner’s wrongful detention and the nature of her arrest.

2. Reuters: This news agency is cited in reference to the translator issue at the airport, where Griner used Google Translate and wasn’t properly informed of her rights. Reuters also covered the proceedings of the court hearing.

3. The Associated Press (AP): The AP is mentioned in connection to Griner’s testimony about her uncertainty regarding how the vape cartridges ended up in her luggage, and her chronic pain that led to her use of cannabis.

4. TASS (Russian News Outlet): This is mentioned regarding the Russian judge’s decision to deny Griner’s request to testify outside of the defendant’s cage due to her height, and instead, allow her to sit while testifying.

5. ABC News: This source is cited for the information about Griner’s personal message to her wife, Cherelle, and her statement during a break in the proceedings.

Based on this article, Jezebel appears to be only somewhat reliable in terms of its factual reporting, especially since it references primarily left-leaning sources such as The New York Times, Reuters, The Associated Press (AP), TASS, and ABC News. The article seems to accurately relay the events surrounding Brittney Griner’s trial and testimony, which aligns with the reports from these respected outlets.

Selection and Omission Bias

However, even if the facts presented by these news sources are accurate, if these sources are all typically leaning towards one side of the spectrum, it is entirely likely that they contain some bias towards the left-side of the spectrum and thus be rendered less reliable in the face of neutrality or objectivity. Of the five sources identified above, 4 of them were liberal-leaning which means that only 1 of them was center. Relying solely on liberal sources can lead to a biased or incomplete understanding of issues. Such sources often present a particular viewpoint, reinforcing ideological beliefs while overlooking or downplaying opposing perspectives. This can result in selective reporting, framing issues in a way that aligns with a specific political agenda. To get a well-rounded view, it is important to engage with a variety of sources, including those with differing political ideologies, to ensure a more balanced and accurate representation of the facts.

That said, as with any publication, it’s always good practice to cross-reference multiple sources for complex stories. However, in this instance, the factual accuracy of the article and its reliance on reputable outlets make it reasonable to consider Jezebel reliable for this particular piece.

So Is Jezebel Reliable?

In conclusion, the reliability of Jezebel depends on its adherence to journalistic standards, including accuracy, transparency, and balanced reporting. While the publication often cites credible sources such as official documents, direct statements, and publicly available data, the reliability of its reporting ultimately hinges on how these sources are interpreted and presented. If the Jezebel article on Brittney Griner’s lawsuit faithfully represents its primary sources without bias or distortion, it can be considered a reliable account. However, readers should remain cautious of any potential framing or editorial slant and cross-check key claims with the original sources for a fuller understanding.

It’s always a smart approach to gather news from a variety of sources and to be aware of who is behind the reporting. If you ever feel uncertain after reading an article or wonder whether you’re unknowingly influenced by your own biases—or even the biases of the news outlets you rely on most—the Biasly Chrome extension can be a valuable tool. It automatically scans and analyzes any article from any news source, providing a detailed, expert assessment of the article’s biases, identifying the specific ways it may lean, and pointing out which parts are affected. This allows readers to better understand the subtle cues that signal bias, helping them become more discerning consumers of news.