Upon clicking on the International Business Times’ website, you’ll see a splendor of articles each categorized under one of the many genres that the IBT is known for reporting on. The IBT does not receive any government funding and relies on the use of paid advertising to fund its website and company.
It is hard to pin the reliability of a news source because it is quite a nuanced matter considering that different new sources may have different intentions. Some publish solely satirical articles, some are reliable for simply the breaking news of the day but not fit for a more in-depth analysis as they may have incorrect facts. The IBT, for example, may fall into such a category.
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 IBT Fare in its Reliability?
The political reliability index developed by Biasly objectively assesses news organizations’ accuracy and trustworthiness. The IBT’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 International Business Time’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:
The IBT’s Fact Analysis Score is ‘Good,’ which suggests readers can trust most of the IBT’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.
The IBT’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 the International Business Times 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 the International Business Times rankings and discuss what to watch out for while searching for trustworthy news sources.
IBT 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 International Business Times news stories. As we previously stated, according to the reports analytics have assessed, International Business Times 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, American Military News, which has a “Moderately Conservative” Bias and a “Good” analyst reliability score according to Biasly. For example, they had one article that had an “Excellent” reliability score titled,” U.S. Marine Corps account attacks Fox’s Tucker Carlson on Twitter, then deletes it, apologizes,” and another article called, “Op-ed: Guns, Politics, and Media Influence,” that had a “Poor” reliability score. As a result, stories displaying political leaning are less reliable than neutral ones.
In the International Business Times article titled, “Trump Defies Order to Lower Flag for Jimmy Carter, Raises Flag Back to Normal Height at Mar-a-Lago” Biasly rated it Somewhat Conservative. The author, Morgan Music, is careful to nearly exclusively include quotes and facts while reporting as well as citing historically agreed-upon facts such as Trump’s hesitation to lower the American flag to half-mast upon the passing of Senator John McCain. However, the framing of the article makes it seem as though it is only Donald Trump that is expressing defiance of the flag codes upon the death of a former president.
“Initially, the large American flag at Mar-a-Lago was lowered in compliance with the order. In recent days however, it was raised to full height—just weeks before Trump’s January 20 inauguration, The Mirror reported…”
“Trump’s decision to prematurely raise the flag has drawn criticism from both sides of the political spectrum, with some viewing it as a sign of disrespect toward Carter’s legacy. While Trump issued a brief statement praising Carter after his death, the former president had previously criticized Carter during his campaign.”
While both of the above quotes are technically true, Trump is far from being the only one to prematurely lower the flag. Mike Johnson and Greg Abbott have also announced their planned violation of the American flag code in preparation for the inauguration of Donald Trump.
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. IBT and the author of the above article could have delivered a more well-rounded analysis of Trump’s actions and who else is responsible for the same things he is to not deliver a more one-off anecdotally accurate piece of news.
Analysis of Reliability in the IBT’s Online News Articles
The article from the International Business Times on the SEC’s lawsuit against Elon Musk appears to draw from a combination of primary and secondary sources. Key references include the official complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), outlining allegations of delayed disclosure of Musk’s Twitter stock purchases. The article also cites Musk’s public response, shared via his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter), where he criticized the SEC. Additional context is provided through stock market data reflecting Twitter’s price surge after Musk’s stake disclosure, as well as specific SEC regulations on reporting stock acquisitions. These sources collectively form the foundation for the claims and details presented in the piece.
1. SEC Complaint: The article references the official complaint filed by the U.S. Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC) against Elon Musk. The SEC alleges that Musk failed to disclose his acquisition of over 5% of Twitter’s outstanding common stock within the required 10-day period, allowing him to purchase additional shares at lower prices, resulting in an alleged underpayment of at least $150 million.
2. Elon Musk’s Response: The article includes Musk’s reaction to the lawsuit, where he criticized the SEC as a “totally broken organization.” This response was made via his social media platform, X (formerly Twitter).
3. SEC Regulations: The piece outlines specific SEC regulations, particularly the requirement for investors to file a beneficial ownership report within 10 days of acquiring more than 5% of a company’s outstanding common stock.
4. Stock Market Data: The article notes that following Musk’s eventual disclosure of his stake, Twitter’s stock price surged by over 27% from the previous day’s closing price. This information is typically sourced from historical stock market data.
5. Wealth Manager’s Actions: Details are provided about instructions allegedly given by Musk’s personal wealth manager to brokers, advising them to purchase Twitter shares in a manner that would minimize any increase in the stock price. These details are likely derived from the SEC’s complaint.
| Source | Prevalence/Length of citing in article | Political Leaning of Source |
| SEC Complaint | Long-length | Center-Left |
| Elon Musk’s X account | Medium-length | Conservative Leaning |
| SEC Regulations | Short-length | Center |
| Stock Market Data | Short-length | Center |
| Wealth Manager’s Actions | Medium-length | Conservative Leaning |
The sources referenced in the International Business Times article on the SEC’s lawsuit against Elon Musk appear credible, as they are primarily based on official and verifiable information. The SEC complaint, being a formal legal document filed by a U.S. regulatory agency, is a reliable and authoritative source. Musk’s public statements on his platform, X (formerly Twitter), are directly attributable to him and can be independently verified. Stock market data is another objective source, typically drawn from publicly available financial records. However, while these sources are credible in themselves, the interpretation or emphasis placed on certain aspects could introduce bias, depending on how the article contextualizes the information. The overall credibility of the piece would also depend on whether the article accurately and transparently represents these sources without misrepresentation or selective omission.
Another key factor when analysing sources requires you to take a step back: before even looking at what the sources are, you need to look at how many there are. Five sources might not provide a diverse range of viewpoints or perspectives. If those sources come from similar backgrounds, ideologies, or interests, they may offer a skewed or incomplete understanding of the topic. The more sources you have, the more likely you are to get a balanced view from different angles. With only five sources, the information you gather might be shallow or lacking in critical nuance. Multiple perspectives from a broader array of sources might present a more thorough analysis, while fewer sources may oversimplify complex issues.If certain ideas or sources dominate, they may inadvertently frame the conversation in a particular direction. This can lead to overrepresentation of certain facts, conclusions, or opinions, creating a biased narrative. If the five sources echo each other’s views, it creates an “echo chamber” effect, where similar opinions are reinforced, and dissenting opinions are minimized or ignored. This can lead to a skewed perception of the subject matter.
So Is the International Business Times Reliable?
In conclusion, the reliability of the International Business Times 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 IBT article on Elon Musk’s SEC 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 is always a good idea to get your news information from multiple different news sources and know who the authors are. If uncertainty ever plagues your mind after reading an article or you want to know if you’re potentially even unaware of your own bias or the bias of the news source you frequent the most, the Biasly Chrome extension can automatically scan and analyze any article from any news source and deliver more in-depth expertise on how the article is biased, in what way(s), and which parts so that the readers can learn to pick up the cues on identifying bias.
