# Are there any unbiased news sources? How to judge one yourself > Every outlet chooses what to cover and what to skip, so no source is unbiased. What drives slant, why each side sees the same coverage as hostile, and five checks that work on any outlet, including ours. Source: https://informed.now/blog/unbiased-news-sources By Kira Shishkin · October 7, 2026 · News Curation **Summary:** No news source is unbiased, because every outlet decides what to cover, what to lead with, and whom to quote, and each of those is a choice. The useful question is which outlets show you their choices: Where the facts came from, what they don't know, and where reporting ends and opinion begins. Five checks below work on any outlet, including ours. Every newsroom publishes a few dozen stories a day out of thousands of things that happened. The ones that make it through pass about seven [**criteria**](https://informed.now/blog/how-news-gets-chosen) editors have used since the 1960s, and the criteria favor conflict, prominence, and the unusual over the slow and the structural, because readers' own [**negativity bias**](https://informed.now/blog/what-is-negativity-bias) rewards them for it. Before a single sentence is written, the outlet has already told you what it thinks matters. That's a bias, in the plain sense of a lean, and it's unavoidable. A paper that ran everything would be a phone book. ### What people mean by unbiased Ask people what they want from news and the answer is consistent. In the Reuters Institute's 2026 [**Digital News Report**](https://reutersinstitute.politics.ox.ac.uk/digital-news-report/2026/dnr-executive-summary), covering 48 markets, 45% said they prefer news that doesn't take sides, and 20% preferred news that shares their point of view. Ask whether they're getting it and the answer flips. Pew Research Center [**found**](https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2020/10/28/americans-blame-unfair-news-coverage-on-media-outlets-not-the-journalists-who-work-for-them/) in a 2020 survey of 10,300 US adults that 79% think news organizations tend to favor one side on political and social issues. Trust tracks the same way: 37% of people across those 48 markets trust most news most of the time, 25% in the United States, and Gallup's September 2026 [**reading**](https://news.gallup.com/poll/714938/trust-news-media-edges-slightly-higher.aspx) put American confidence in newspapers, television, and radio at 33%. So most people want a neutral source, and most people believe they don't have one. Both can be true, and the gap between them has three causes. ### Three reasons no outlet is neutral **Selection.** Covering a story is a decision, and skipping one is a decision that leaves no trace. Two honest outlets can publish only true sentences and still leave their readers with opposite pictures of the week, because each chose different parts of the week to describe. Nothing in the text reveals what was left out, and an algorithmic [**feed**](https://informed.now/blog/curated-news-vs-algorithmic-feeds) makes the same choice with a model instead of an editor. **Demand.** Slant follows readers more than owners. In a 2010 study of 433 US daily newspapers, economists Matthew Gentzkow and Jesse Shapiro measured each paper's political language against the speech of congressional Democrats and Republicans. The [**result**](https://www.nber.org/papers/w12707): Papers tilt toward the politics of the zip codes that buy them, reader preferences explained about 20% of the variation in slant, and who owned the paper explained far less. An outlet reads the way its readers want it to read, which means a source that feels neutral to you is partly telling you about yourself. **Perception.** In 1985, Stanford researchers showed the same television coverage of the 1982 Beirut massacre to pro-Israeli and pro-Arab students. Both groups [**judged**](https://doi.org/10.1037/0022-3514.49.3.577) the identical footage as biased against their own side, and each recalled more negative references to their side than the other group did. The hostile media effect, as it's now called, has been replicated across topics for forty years. Partisans agree the coverage is unfair, and each is certain it's unfair to them. Put the three together and "unbiased" turns out to be a feeling, and a feeling that moves with the reader. ### Don't the bias charts settle this? Partly, and they're worth using. [**Media bias**](https://informed.now/blog/what-is-media-bias) rating organizations such as Ad Fontes Media and AllSides place outlets on a left-to-right scale using panels of raters drawn from across the political spectrum. Ad Fontes [**scores**](https://adfontesmedia.com/how-ad-fontes-ranks-news-sources/) individual articles on two axes, reliability and bias, with panels of at least three politically mixed analysts, then averages them into a source rating. If you want to know whether an outlet's language leans one way, a chart answers faster than you can. Three things a chart can't do. It can't see what an outlet didn't cover, and selection is the largest bias. It can't tell you whether a particular story is true, only whether the outlet's output tends to be reliable. And a center rating measures the middle of today's politics, which drifts, so an outlet can move on the chart without changing a word of its standards. The chart is a map of lean. You still have to judge the reporting. ### Five checks that work on any outlet These take a minute per story, and they don't require knowing anything about the outlet's reputation. 1. **Open the source.** A good story names where its facts came from and lets you reach the original: The filing, the study, the transcript, the dataset. If the only source is "officials say" or another outlet's write-up, the story is a second-hand report, and you should weigh it that way. 2. **Look for what it doesn't know.** Honest reporting says what hasn't been confirmed. A story with no uncertainty in it was either about something simple or edited to sound more certain than its reporters are. 3. **Match the headline to the body.** Headlines are written for the click, often by a different person, under a different incentive. If the body's claim is smaller than the headline's, the outlet is willing to spend your trust for traffic. 4. **Find the line between reporting and opinion.** Outlets that label analysis and commentary make a promise about everything they don't label. Outlets that blend them are asking you to sort it out. 5. **Read the same event in a source you'd never choose.** The facts both versions agree on are the part you can rely on, and the facts only one version mentions are where selection did its work. The checks leave the source as slanted as it was and leave you able to tell the lean from the lie, which is the skill the word "unbiased" was standing in for. ### How we handle this at informed.now We're an outlet, so everything above applies to us. We pick stories by how much an event changes the lives of how many people, which is a lean toward consequence and away from spectacle, and we say so. We research down to primary sources, which is possible in roughly 80% of our coverage, and we cite a single strongest source for readers even when we reference hundreds, so the first check passes on every brief [**informed.now**](https://informed.now/) sends. Our [**methodology**](https://informed.now/methodology) page lists the rest. Hold us to it. ### The question behind the question People searching for an unbiased source usually want something simpler: One place to read that won't make a fool of them. No outlet can promise that, because every outlet is a set of choices made by people. What an outlet can do is show its choices and its sources, and what a reader can do is check them. A news habit built on those two things is calmer than the search for a neutral source, and it's the only version that was ever available.