The Process

To generate bias scores, The Bias Brief (TBB) employs a sophisticated process that hinges on technologies and methods developed by Coeus Institute. This process involves several key steps and considerations:

Collection of Data: TBB initially gathers articles from a wide range of news sources. These sources span the political spectrum, ensuring a diverse input for analysis.

Quantitative Baseline Establishment: For each news article, TBB applies AI to extract qualitative information, which is then transformed into quantitative data. This involves identifying and quantifying various metrics that can indicate bias. These metrics include, but are not limited to; Spin, Unsubstantiated claims, Opinion statements presented as facts, Sensationalism, Emotionalism, Mudslinging, Slant, Logical Fallacies, Cognitive bias, and the use of Subjective qualifying adjectives.

Statistical Analysis: Using the quantitative baselines established, TBB’s AI performs predefined statistical methodologies to identify patterns, trends, and correlations within the data. This step is crucial for objectively assessing the ideological orientation of the content.

Scoring System: Based on the analysis, each piece of content is assigned a bias score. This score categorizes news content on a predefined scale that reflects its political leanings, ranging from left-leaning to right-leaning. The precise nature of this scoring system ensures that evaluations are consistent and free from human bias.

Dynamic and Real-time Analysis: TBB is capable of processing and analyzing news content in real-time. This means that the bias scores are continually updated to reflect the most current news narratives and trends.

Advanced Contextual Analysis: Beyond simple keyword or sentiment analysis, TBB delves into the deeper context and significance of reported news events. It considers the framing of content, the credibility of sources, and how certain narratives may be pushed or omitted, providing a well-rounded view of media bias.

By leveraging intelligent automation, proprietary algorithms, and finetuned open-source LLM models, TBB aims to provide the most transparent, objective, and systematic evaluation of news bias to date. This process is key to TBB’s public mission to illuminate the hidden divides embedded within today’s media landscape.

Bias Score & Lean Direction

Here on the TBB website, we simplify the display of our detailed bias scores for ease of understanding. Originally, our scores are calculated with high precision and range widely. However, for clear communication, we convert these scores into a simpler 1-10 scale. Here’s how it works:

    1. Score Range: We first identify the lowest and highest bias scores directly from our data.
    2. Dividing into Blocks: We divide this range into ten segments, each representing 10% of the total range.
    3. Assignment of Scores: When an article’s bias score falls into one of these segments, we assign a rounded numerical value from 1 to 10 corresponding to that segment.

This approach ensures that the scores you see are easy to reference and compare across different articles on our platform.

Left Leaning

“Left-leaning” refers to perspectives that support policies whose aim is to reduce social disparities, enhance civil rights, and provide universal access to healthcare and education. Advocates often focus on issues like climate change, civil liberties, and welfare programs to ensure a safety net for all citizens.

In international and domestic policy, left-leaning individuals and groups prioritize global cooperation and regulations that protect workers, the environment, and marginalized communities. They champion social justice initiatives and seek legal and social reforms to promote rights for minorities, and the LGBTQ+ community, viewing such efforts as essential to a fair and equal society.

Right Leaning

“Right-leaning” refers to a political orientation or viewpoint that generally aligns with the ideologies associated with freedom. This term is often used to describe individuals, groups, policies, or media outlets that support ideas and policies emphasizing free market economics, limited government intervention, traditional social values, and a “Our nation first” perspective.

Right-leaning individuals ordinarily advocates for lower taxes, reduced government spending, free speech, and deregulation of businesses to promote economic growth. They often prioritize individual responsibility and personal autonomy in economic matters, while supporting conservative views on social issues.

Have a suggestion, comment, or question? Ask

Determining Bias

Determining bias involves a detailed process designed to dissect and understand media coverage from multiple angles. We start by evaluating the source’s reliability, looking at its history of factual reporting and adherence to journalistic standards. Our analysis then delves into the content, where we mathematically examine tone, word choice, and targeting language used for any emotive or charged terms that could intend to sway readers’ perceptions. We assess the balance of viewpoints in the article, especially on controversial topics, and ensure all necessary context is provided to fully understand the issue. We also review the editorial process to verify that the article has undergone thorough vetting for accuracy and fairness.

To quantify these qualitative aspects, we use a scoring system that allows us to measure the level of bias systematically. This quantification is crucial because it transforms subjective observations into objective data, making it easier to compare and track bias across different sources and articles.  Here are some of the variables our system assess:

Source Reliability

The reliability of a news source is determined by evaluating its track record of providing accurate and trustworthy information. This assessment takes into account several key factors, including the source’s commitment to upholding journalistic standards, the effectiveness of its fact-checking procedures, and its standing among other reputable news organizations. Additionally, the source’s history of issuing corrections and retractions when necessary, as well as any past involvement in controversies related to spreading misinformation, significantly influences its overall reliability rating.


Reliable sources are fundamental to unbiased, ethical journalism. They typically adhere to stringent journalistic standards, which include a commitment to accuracy, fairness, and impartiality in reporting. Such sources are less likely to publish misleading or false information and are more likely to provide balanced coverage. Reliability often correlates with an organization’s internal codes of conduct, the professionalism of its editorial team, and its transparency about its own practices and funding.

  • Adherence to Journalistic Standards: Reliable news organizations follow established journalistic guidelines, which include checking facts, corroborating information with multiple sources, and editing content rigorously before publication.
  • Ethical Reporting: Ethical reporting involves presenting news in a fair, balanced, and objective manner, without personal or organizational bias. This includes providing context, avoiding sensationalism, and distinguishing clearly between news, opinion, and analysis.
  • Indicators of Bias: The track record of a news source can indicate its propensity for biased reporting. Sources with a history of skewed perspectives may be less reliable in providing unbiased information.
  • Public Trust: The credibility of a source often influences public trust. A source that regularly demonstrates reliability is more likely to be trusted by its audience, whereas repeated instances of misinformation can severely damage a source’s reputation.

Understanding the reliability of a source is crucial for audiences seeking to interpret news content accurately. By evaluating the reliability of the sources, TBB aims to help users discern the quality of information they are consuming, reducing the impact of bias on their understanding of news events. This assessment helps ensure that users are receiving information from sources that uphold the highest standards of journalism, thereby fostering a well-informed public.

Use of Language

The “Use of Language” metric focuses on analyzing the choice of words within an article, especially noting the use of emotive or charged language. This analysis involves identifying words and phrases that are intended to provoke emotional responses in the reader, such as anger, fear, or sympathy. The presence of sensationalist language, superlatives, or adjectives that reflect subjective judgment rather than objective facts is scrutinized. This metric also considers the overall tone of the article—whether it is aggressive, conciliatory, or neutral—and how that tone might affect the reader’s perception of the content.


Language is a powerful tool in shaping public opinion and perception. The way information is presented can significantly affect how it is received and processed by audiences:

  • Emotional Manipulation: Words charged with emotion can manipulate feelings and steer public opinion. For example, describing a protest as a “riot” versus a “demonstration” can evoke very different emotional reactions and connotations.
  • Influence on Perception: Emotive language can distort the reader’s understanding by emphasizing certain aspects of a story while downplaying others. This can lead to biased interpretations of events, where the emotional reaction overshadows factual analysis.
  • Impact on Credibility: Excessive use of charged language can undermine the credibility of the article. Readers seeking factual information may question the reliability of a source that frequently uses emotive words to sway opinions.
  • Tool for Bias: Language is often used intentionally by some media outlets to align with their ideological stance, influencing readers to adopt similar viewpoints. Recognizing this tactic is crucial for maintaining objectivity and discerning bias in reporting.

By evaluating the use of language, TBB aims to highlight instances where language may be used to influence rather than inform. This analysis helps users recognize potential bias and consider how the choice of words might color their understanding of the news. Understanding this dimension of media bias empowers readers to critically assess the news they consume, fostering a more discerning and informed audience.

Factuality of Reporting

The “Factuality of Reporting” metric assesses the degree to which news articles adhere to factual, evidence-based reporting as opposed to opinion, speculation, or unverified claims. This evaluation involves checking if the article is supported by data, verifiable facts, and references that can be independently confirmed. It also examines whether the article distinguishes clearly between news and opinion, a critical aspect of trustworthy journalism. Key components include the presence and quality of source citations, the transparency about methods of data collection, and the clarity with which information is presented without distortion or undue influence from biased perspectives.


The emphasis on factuality in reporting is foundational to maintaining the integrity and trustworthiness of journalism:

  • Reduction of Bias: Articles that are well-supported by facts are less prone to bias because they rely on information that can be objectively verified, rather than subjective interpretations or emotionally charged rhetoric. Factual reporting prioritizes truth over influence.
  • Enhanced Credibility: Publications that consistently demonstrate factual accuracy are more likely to be regarded as credible sources of information. Credibility is crucial for building and maintaining trust with the audience.
  • Informed Public Discourse: Factual reporting contributes to a more informed public discourse by providing the audience with accurate information necessary for making informed decisions. It plays a vital role in a democratic society where citizens rely on accurate news to participate in governance and community activities.
  • Prevention of Misinformation: By adhering to factual reporting, media outlets can help prevent the spread of misinformation and disinformation, which are often used to manipulate public opinion and can lead to significant societal harm.

Rigorously assessing the factuality of reporting, TBB ensures that the news articles presented through its platform meet the highest standards of journalistic integrity. This metric helps users discern the reliability of different news sources and encourages a more educated and critical approach to consuming media, essential for navigating today’s complex information environment.

Balance and Fairness

The “Balance and Fairness” metric evaluates whether a news article presents multiple viewpoints on a given issue, especially when dealing with controversial or divisive topics. This analysis includes examining whether the article provides space for differing perspectives, whether those perspectives are represented proportionately, and if the arguments from various sides are presented with equal depth and rigor. It also checks for any apparent favoritism in tone or content that might skew the presentation toward one viewpoint over others. Moreover, it assesses the neutrality of the reporter, looking at how they handle the subject matter without inserting personal biases or opinions.


The emphasis on balance and fairness in news reporting is crucial for several reasons:

  • Reduction of Perceptual Bias: When articles present multiple viewpoints, they help reduce the perceptual bias that can occur when only a single perspective is highlighted. This approach fosters a more nuanced understanding of complex issues.
  • Promotion of Equitable Discourse: Fair coverage ensures that no single viewpoint dominates the discourse, which is particularly important in a democratic society where diverse opinions should be heard and considered equally. This helps in promoting a more equitable and inclusive public conversation.
  • Trust in Media: Media outlets that strive for balanced reporting are often viewed as more trustworthy because they demonstrate a commitment to impartiality. Trust is essential for maintaining a broad and engaged readership or viewership.
  • Informed Decision-Making: By providing a balanced view, media helps the public make more informed decisions. When consumers of news are exposed to a range of perspectives, they have the opportunity to analyze the merits and weaknesses of each viewpoint, leading to more thoughtful conclusions and actions.

Applying the “Balance and Fairness” metric TBB ensures that the articles it presents are not only informative but also unbiased in their representation of different perspectives. This approach aids in upholding the standards of journalism and enhances the quality of public discourse, making it an essential practice for fostering an informed and engaged populace.

Context and Completeness

The “Context and Completeness” metric evaluates how well an article provides the essential background and context needed for a comprehensive understanding of the subject it covers. This involves examining whether the article includes historical background, relevant data, and explanations of terms and events that are necessary for a full appreciation of the issue at hand. It also checks if the article connects the current events to broader themes or ongoing issues, thereby placing the story within a larger narrative. This metric assesses the presence of any gaps in information that could leave a reader with a partial or skewed understanding of the topic.


Providing complete context in news reporting is critical for several reasons:

  • Prevention of Misinterpretation: Proper context helps prevent misunderstandings and misinterpretations of the news by filling in gaps that might otherwise lead to incorrect conclusions. Context helps clarify the reasons behind events and decisions, giving readers a more accurate and nuanced understanding.
  • Reduction of Bias by Omission: Without full context, reporting can inadvertently (or intentionally) introduce bias by omitting information that might influence how readers perceive the news. Complete context ensures that all relevant facts are presented, allowing readers to make informed judgments without being swayed by incomplete data.
  • Enhanced Reader Engagement and Education: Articles that provide comprehensive context not only inform but also educate the audience, enhancing their ability to engage with the content meaningfully. This deepens public knowledge and contributes to a more informed citizenry.
  • Building Credibility and Trust: Media outlets that consistently provide thorough context are often perceived as more credible and trustworthy. Credibility is built through a commitment to transparency and thoroughness, which in turn fosters greater trust among the audience.

Analyzing the “Context and Completeness” of an article allows TBB identify partial reporting or the omission of crucial information. This practice promotes a deeper and more balanced understanding of news stories, which is vital for cultivating an informed, critical, and engaged audience.

Authorial Intent

The “Authorial Intent” metric assesses the primary purpose behind an article, categorizing it based on whether its intent is to inform, persuade, entertain, or some combination thereof. This evaluation involves analyzing the structure of the article, the type of language used (factual vs. emotive), the presence of calls to action, and whether the content includes opinionated commentary or remains objective. It also considers the setting in which the article is presented, such as a news report versus an editorial, and any explicit or implicit indications from the author about the intended impact of the article on its readers.


Understanding the intent of the author is crucial for several reasons:

  • Clarity of Purpose: Recognizing whether an article is intended to inform, persuade, or entertain helps readers set appropriate expectations about the content. It enables them to critically assess the information based on its intended use.
  • Identification of Bias: Articles intended to persuade or express opinions are more likely to contain subjective viewpoints and selective presentation of facts, which can introduce bias. Knowing the author’s intent can alert readers to the likelihood of encountering biased perspectives.
  • Appropriate Contextualization: Understanding the intent allows readers to contextualize the information properly. For example, the criteria for evaluating the reliability and neutrality of a news report differ significantly from those for an opinion piece or satirical content.
  • Enhanced Media Literacy: By being aware of authorial intent, readers develop stronger media literacy skills, enabling them to navigate complex media landscapes more effectively. This awareness helps differentiate between different types of content and understand their respective roles and influences.

By meticulously assessing the “Authorial Intent”, TBB uncovers the underlying purposes of the articles it assesses, providing users with crucial insights into the potential biases and objectives behind different pieces of content. This understanding fosters a more discerning readership, capable of engaging with media content in an informed and critical manner.

Editorial Oversight

The “Editorial Oversight” metric evaluates the level of editorial control and the review process that articles undergo before publication. This involves analyzing the thoroughness of the editing process, including fact-checking, review of sources, assessment of language and tone, and overall alignment with journalistic standards. The metric also considers the credentials and expertise of the editorial team, their independence from external pressures, and their commitment to ethical journalism practices. Additionally, the presence of a clearly defined editorial policy that guides the decision-making process is a crucial aspect of this metric.


The role of editorial oversight is critical in maintaining the quality and integrity of journalistic content for several reasons:

  • Enhancement of Factual Accuracy: Rigorous editorial processes help ensure that all information is accurately represented and supported by reliable sources, significantly reducing errors and the dissemination of misinformation.
  • Mitigation of Bias: Strong editorial standards include reviewing content for neutrality and fairness. Editors play a key role in identifying and correcting biased viewpoints, ensuring that the coverage is balanced and reflective of diverse perspectives.
  • Promotion of Accountability: Editorial oversight fosters accountability in journalism. Editors are responsible for the content that their organization publishes, which encourages careful scrutiny and adherence to high standards.
  • Protection against External Influences: Effective editorial oversight helps safeguard journalistic content from being unduly influenced by political, commercial, or personal interests, thus maintaining editorial independence and integrity.
  • Public Trust: Media outlets known for strict editorial oversight are generally more trusted by the public. Trust is essential for maintaining a readership base and for the overall credibility of the media organization.

Through investigating the articles “Editorial Oversight”, TBB ensures that the articles it evaluates are not only accurate and fair but also uphold the highest standards of journalism. This practice helps in presenting information that is trustworthy and free from undue bias, thereby contributing to a more informed and discerning public discourse.

Sources & Citations

The “Citation of Sources” metric assesses the extent and quality of source citations within an article. This evaluation involves examining how thoroughly sources are documented, including the credibility of the sources cited (e.g., primary sources, reputable journals, or official reports versus anonymous sources or unverifiable claims). It also looks at the relevance and timeliness of the sources, their accessibility (such as links to original documents or studies), and the consistency of citation practices throughout the article. This metric checks for both direct quotations and paraphrased information, ensuring that all claims are appropriately backed up by evidence.


The rigorous citation of sources is fundamental to high-quality journalism for several reasons:

  • Verification of Information: Proper citations provide a pathway for readers and other journalists to verify the facts and data presented in an article. This is crucial for maintaining the integrity of the information and for supporting claims made by the journalist.
  • Increased Transparency: By clearly citing sources, journalists disclose their research process and demonstrate that their work is based on established facts, which enhances the transparency of their reporting.
  • Reduction of Misinformation: Accurate and thorough citations help prevent the spread of misinformation. When sources are clearly cited, it reduces the likelihood of misinterpretation and manipulation of information, as readers can directly access and assess the original sources.
  • Accountability and Ethical Practice: Strong citation practices hold journalists accountable for their work. It shows a commitment to ethical reporting standards, where the origins of information are never obscured, thus fostering trust and credibility with the audience.
  • Supporting Scholarly and Public Discourse: Well-cited articles contribute to scholarly and public discourse by providing a solid foundation for further research and discussion. They enable other researchers and the public to engage with the material in a deeper and more meaningful way.

By observing the lack, use, or quality of Sources & Citations, TBB ensures that the articles it evaluates adhere to the highest standards of journalistic rigor. This practice not only helps in providing factual and reliable information but also supports a culture of accountability and integrity in media reporting, which is essential for an informed and critically engaged audience.

Comparative Analysis

The “Comparative Analysis” metric involves systematically comparing how different news sources cover the same topic or event. This analysis looks at various dimensions such as the depth of coverage, the angles and aspects emphasized, the sources cited, and the language used. By examining a range of reports from across the political and ideological spectrum, this metric assesses the variance in reporting styles, content focus, and the presence of potentially omitted details in individual reports. It also includes evaluating the consistency of factual reporting across sources and identifying any anomalies or outliers in how information is presented.


Comparative analysis is a crucial tool for uncovering biases and enhancing the understanding of media coverage for several reasons:

  • Highlighting Discrepancies: By comparing different sources, discrepancies in how an event is reported can be highlighted. These discrepancies might indicate a bias or a particular narrative being pushed by specific outlets.
  • Identifying Commonalities: Common elements across various reports can help establish the core facts of a story, which are less likely to be biased and more likely to be universally recognized as truthful.
  • Revealing Omissions: This approach can reveal what certain sources might have omitted, either intentionally or unintentionally. Omissions can skew the audience’s perception of an event and can lead to a partial or biased understanding.
  • Broadening Perspectives: Comparative analysis encourages a broader perspective by exposing the audience to multiple viewpoints. This helps break down echo chambers and promotes a more balanced and informed understanding.
  • Enhancing Media Literacy: Engaging with multiple sources and recognizing differences in reporting can improve media literacy. It equips readers to better analyze and critique the information they consume, fostering critical thinking skills.

By applying the “Comparative Analysis” metric, TBB ensures that its assessments of news bias are comprehensive and reflective of the broader media landscape. This practice not only aids in identifying biases but also enhances the credibility of the platform by providing a more nuanced and thorough evaluation of news coverage.

Why AI?

We utilize AI, intelligent data automation, and sophisticated algorithms to standardize the qualitative assessment of news bias. This approach is foundational to our mission as it ensures a level of impartiality and consistency that human analysis, often influenced by inherent biases, cannot guarantee. In an era marked by polarization, AI operates with programmed neutrality, evaluating information with uniform standards and eliminating the subjectivity that can color human judgment.

The use of advanced technology enables us to process and analyze large volumes of data with precision and efficiency. This capability is critical for performing in-depth statistical analyses, which include examining source history and uncovering valuable correlations among news characteristics. Such comprehensive analytics not only enhance our understanding of the media landscape but also support a more nuanced exploration of how news bias influences public perception.

For more information about The Bias Brief please feel free to ask our resident LLM!

Have a question or comment, please use the form below!

2 + 7 =

Follow us on social media to get the latest updates and news!

WILMINGTON, Delaware, 19801, US  [‪207-613-6533]‬

COPYRIGHT © 2022 - 2024.  Coeus Institute LLC. All Rights Reserved.

 Terms of Use & Service

Welcome to The Bias Brief (, powered by Coeus Institute ( Our website offers a balanced view of global news by presenting them alongside their political bias scores. These Terms of Use govern your access to and use of our website, including any content, functionality, and services offered on or through our site. By accessing or using the website, you agree to be bound by these terms. If you do not agree to these terms, please do not use our services.

Intellectual Property Rights
The technologies, services, and all content provided on the website, including but not limited to text, graphics, logos, button icons, images, audio clips, digital downloads, and data compilations are owned by The Bias Brief or its content suppliers and are protected by international copyright and intellectual property laws. Our proprietary data integration systems and algorithms used for news aggregation and bias scoring are under the copyright of Coeus Institute. Unauthorized reproduction, modification, distribution, transmission, republication, display, or performance of the content or software is strictly prohibited.

User License
Subject to your compliance with these Terms of Use, The Bias Brief grants you a limited, non-exclusive, non-transferable, non-sublicensable license to access and make personal, non-commercial use of the website. This license does not include any resale or commercial use of any service or its contents, any collection and use of any product listings, descriptions, or prices; any derivative use of any service or its contents; any downloading, copying, or other use of account information for the benefit of any third party; or any use of data mining, robots, or similar data gathering and extraction tools.

User Obligations
You agree to use the website only for lawful purposes and in a manner that does not infringe the rights of, restrict, or inhibit the use and enjoyment of the website by any third party. Prohibited behavior includes harassing or causing distress or inconvenience to any other user, transmitting obscene or offensive content, or disrupting the normal flow of dialogue within our website.

Content and Contributions
Any content you contribute to the site, including feedback, comments, or suggestions, will become the sole property of The Bias Brief. We reserve the right to use, reproduce, modify, adapt, publish, translate, create derivative works from, distribute, and display such content throughout the world in any media. You grant The Bias Brief and its affiliates and sublicensees the right to use the name that you submit in connection with such content, if they choose.

Disclaimer of Warranties and Limitation of Liability
The Bias Brief makes no representations or warranties of any kind, express or implied, as to the operation of their services, or the information, content, materials, or products included on this website. You expressly agree that your use of this website is at your sole risk.

The website is provided on an "as is" and "as available" basis. Neither The Bias Brief nor any of its affiliates, directors, officers, employees, agents, contributors, third-party content providers, or licensors guarantee that the website will be error-free or uninterrupted, nor do they make any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of the website, or as to the accuracy, reliability, or currency of any information content, service, or merchandise provided through the website.

Changes to Terms of Use
We reserve the right, at our sole discretion, to update, change or replace any part of these Terms of Use by posting updates and changes to our website. It is your responsibility to check our website periodically for changes. Your continued use of or access to our website or the Service following the posting of any changes to these Terms of Use constitutes acceptance of those changes.

Contact Information
Questions about the Terms of Use should be sent to us at [ ].

COPYRIGHT © 2022 - 2024.  Coeus Institute LLC. All Rights Reserved.

Copy link