Pith. sign in

REVIEW 3 major objections 5 minor 86 references

This paper argues that Media Bias/Fact Check, a widely used source of media-bias ratings, is methodologically unsound and that misinformation research should stop relying on it.

Reviewed by Pith at T0; open to challenge. T0 means a machine referee read the full paper against a public rubric. the ladder, T0–T4 →

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗

A single-person, methodologically untested media rating site (MBFC) is commonly mischaracterized as an independent fact-checking organization in ~3.5–7.4% of misinformation papers, and this audit argues it should not be used as ground truth.

T0 review reviewed 2026-08-02 challenge →

load-bearing objection A well-evidenced methodological warning about MBFC wrapped in a literature census whose strongest negative claim outruns the data. the 3 major comments →

arxiv 2607.12108 v2 pith:3NJBYNZP submitted 2026-07-13 cs.SI physics.soc-ph

Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research

Alejandro Javier Ruiz Iglesias , Julia Witte Zimmerman , Ashley M.A. Fehr , Peter Sheridan Dodds , Christopher M. Danforth This is my paper
classification cs.SI physics.soc-ph
keywords media biasfact-checkingmisinformationground truthdata qualitymethodology critiquemedia credibilityhegemony
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

This paper argues that Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) — a widely used source for rating the bias and credibility of news outlets — does not meet basic standards of academic rigor. A snowball survey of 10,642 papers found MBFC in 3.5% to 7.4% of the relevant literature, often as ground truth for machine-learning models, yet no paper in the sample adequately described MBFC as the opinion of a single individual or critically justified its use. The authors show that MBFC's methodology relies on unexplained weights, arbitrary bin sizes, hidden raw scores, and rubrics that contradict the site's own disclaimer that it is 'not a tested scientific method.' If the paper is right, results built on MBFC ratings rest on an unauditable and politically loaded account of media bias, and the field's crisis-of-trust conclusions may be reproducing the very discourse they study.

Core claim

The paper's central claim is that MBFC's data is specious rather than neutral: it quantifies the results of a decades-long political campaign to discredit the press, then presents those results as simple facts about the world. The evidence comes from two sides: a close reading of MBFC's currently published rubrics (e.g., a {bias} score 35% determined by an {economic system} scale that would classify Nazi Germany or Saudi Arabia as leftist), and a literature analysis showing that 372 papers invoke MBFC, frequently describing it as an 'independent fact-checking organization' despite MBFC's own description as a one-person hobby with a disclaimer that its method is not tested science. The author

What carries the argument

The argument rests on two mechanisms. First, a methodological audit of MBFC's public documentation and API output, exposing unexplained percentage weights, irregular binning of raw scores that are never exposed to users, nested override logic in the credibility rubric, and conceptual slippage between {bias} and {factual reporting}. Second, a snowball citation sample seeded from Scopus records, extended through metadata databases, that scans manuscript texts for MBFC mentions and analyzes the surrounding context with NLP to characterize how the literature describes the tool. The audit shows the data cannot be independently verified; the literature survey shows it is nevertheless used uncritic

Load-bearing premise

The strong empirical claim that no paper in the literature adequately describes MBFC as one person's opinion rests on the snowball sample being complete, but manuscript text was unavailable for 61% of the papers in the database, so the claim could be an artifact of missing data rather than the true state of the literature.

What would settle it

A single peer-reviewed paper that (a) cites MBFC, (b) explicitly states that MBFC is the opinion of one individual, and (c) nonetheless justifies using it with a critical engagement with its limitations would falsify the paper's strongest negative claim. Alternatively, an archived pre-2025 version of MBFC's dataset with the raw scores would undercut the claim that the data is unauditable.

Watch this falsifier. Get emailed when new claim-graph text bears on it.

If this is right

  • Any study that uses MBFC ratings as ground truth for training or validating fake-news classifiers inherits a single individual's untested, politically situated judgments and risks encoding them into automated moderation systems.
  • Highly cited papers that rely on MBFC—including several that define 'reliable' and 'questionable' sources—should be re-examined for how their conclusions change if MBFC's labels are not accepted.
  • Composite datasets and commercial products that bundle MBFC propagate the same specious ground truth, sometimes beyond the point where provenance is traceable.
  • Existing misinformation research that uses MBFC cannot simply be corrected; the underlying measurements are unarchived for pre-2025 data, so comparisons across time are impossible.
  • The field needs alternative, transparent, and independently auditable source-rating schemes before MBFC is retired.

Where Pith is reading between the lines

These are editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

  • An editorial extension: the same structural critique may apply to other media-quality ratings (e.g., those built on small panels or proprietary rubrics) if they too hide their scoring procedures; a comparative audit of such systems would test whether MBFC is uniquely bad or representative of a wider problem.
  • If the paper's claim about hegemony is taken seriously, even an 'improved' MBFC that added transparency and citations could not fully fix the problem, because the underlying categories (liberal, biased, factual) are themselves politically contested; a purely procedural fix would not address the conceptual issue.
  • One testable extension: replicate the literature survey using full-text search through Google Scholar or publisher APIs rather than relying on PDFs and OCR; this should find papers that the snowball missed and directly test the paper's claim that no paper adequately describes MBFC as one person's opinion.
  • Another extension: examine whether downstream models trained on MBFC labels produce systematically different accuracy or harm outcomes when re-trained on alternative ratings, which would quantify the real-world cost of using MBFC.
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, simulated authors' rebuttal, and a circularity audit.

Referee Report

3 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper audits Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC), a widely used source of media bias and credibility ratings, and argues that it is unsuitable as a basis for academic research. The authors document from MBFC's own pages and archives that its methodology uses unexplained weighting, arbitrary binning, inaccessible raw scores, nested credibility logic, and economically/politically contentious category definitions; they note MBFC's explicit disclaimer that it is not a tested scientific method. They then report a snowball literature search in which 372 of 10,642 papers (3.50%) in their database reference MBFC, with higher percentages in a misinformation-focused subset, and argue that the literature overwhelmingly misdescribes MBFC as an independent fact-checking organization rather than as one individual's opinion. They conclude by urging researchers to stop using MBFC and by interpreting the dataset's acceptance through a Gramscian/hegemony framework.

Significance. If the paper's central methodological critique stands, it is a valuable and overdue caution about a widely used dataset. The authors deserve credit for grounding the critique in primary sources: MBFC's own methodology pages, archived versions, and public disclaimers are quoted and dated, and the internal inconsistencies they identify (e.g., the three incompatible bias scales, the unexplained bin boundaries, the composite credibility logic) are concrete and verifiable. The paper also usefully documents how often MBFC is misdescribed in the literature. However, the strongest empirical claim—that no paper anywhere has adequately described or critically justified MBFC—rests on a sampling procedure with a large unexamined fraction, and the accuracy claim is supported by illustrative examples rather than a systematic validation. These issues limit the strength of the paper's abstract and conclusions, though they do not undermine the core point that MBFC's methodology is not transparent enough to serve as uncritical ground truth.

major comments (3)
  1. [Abstract; Section III B] The abstract states: "We identified no papers that adequately describe MBFC as the opinions of a single person or critically engage with its methodology." This negative existential is load-bearing for the paper's empirical claim that the literature "rarely examines MBFC carefully," but the sampling method cannot support it. Section III B reports that manuscript text was unavailable for 61% of the 10,642 papers, and the snowball algorithm terminates branches whose PDFs cannot be fetched. Papers behind paywalls, with OCR failures, or citing MBFC in ways not captured by the seed/metadata pipeline are invisible to the search. The paper itself acknowledges "we expect that 3.50% is an underestimate," yet the unqualified "no papers" phrase is retained. The conclusion should be restricted to "no papers in our searchable sample," or the authors should supplement the snowball procedure with a targ
  2. [Abstract; Section V C] The abstract claims MBFC's data is "not neutral or accurate." The non-neutrality and lack of reproducibility are well documented, but "not accurate" is a stronger empirical claim. The evidence in Section V C consists of selected internal inconsistencies and counterexamples (Saudi Arabia, Huffington Post, state-owned economies) rather than a systematic comparison of MBFC ratings against an independent benchmark or a formal test of rubric application. It is possible that the paper's intended meaning is that accuracy cannot be verified because raw scores are inaccessible and the methodology is inconsistent. That claim is supported and would be sufficient for the policy recommendation. The authors should either provide a systematic accuracy evaluation or reframe the conclusion as "MBFC's accuracy cannot be established and its ratings exhibit internal inconsistencies," rather than asserting i
  3. [Sections V B–V D] The Gramscian/hegemony interpretation is presented as an explanation for MBFC's design and scholarly acceptance, and the abstract includes the claim that MBFC is "a computationally legible account of hegemony." This is a theoretically grounded interpretation, not an empirical result of the audit in Sections II–IV. The paper does not define observable criteria that would distinguish the hegemony explanation from alternative explanations (e.g., convenience, lack of better data, or simple negligence). Since the historical narrative and ideological framing are not required for the central methodological conclusion, they should be clearly labeled as an interpretive hypothesis rather than as a finding derived from the documented evidence. This separation would also make the paper's argument easier for readers who accept the methodology critique but do not subscribe to the specific theoretical
minor comments (5)
  1. [Section II] Typographical and formatting issues: "outlet's" should be "outlets"; "wisely used" in Section III B should presumably be "widely used"; "plaintly" in Section V D should be "plainly"; "Hufftingon post" in reference [48] should be "Huffington Post"; "MNSIT" in Section V D should be "MNIST."
  2. [Section III B; Table IV] The phrase "terminating the snowball sample for that branch" is slightly misleading: if a PDF cannot be fetched, the algorithm stops following that paper's citations, so the sample is biased toward papers whose full text is openly available. This should be stated explicitly in the main text, not only in the limitations discussion.
  3. [Figure 4] The label "MBFC would be here" is unclear. It appears to indicate where MBFC-referencing papers would rank if they were highly cited, but the figure does not show a concrete position. Consider adding a marker or a more descriptive caption.
  4. [Section II C; reference [26]] The list of "countries with which the United States has strained or hostile relations" is presented without selection criteria. Since the subsequent observation that almost all of these countries receive "total oppression" is used as evidence, the criteria for inclusion in this list should be specified to avoid the appearance of cherry-picking.
  5. [Section IV A] The NLP context-window method excludes contexts containing a digit directly before an alias, which is reasonable for footnotes, but this also means that some relevant methodological discussions occurring in footnotes are not analyzed. The paper does rely on qualitative reading as well, but this limitation should be acknowledged near the NLP methods description.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged

No significant circularity: the critique is grounded in MBFC's own published rubrics and an independent snowball audit, with no fitted parameter or self-citation forming the derivation.

full rationale

The paper's central claim is that MBFC's methodology does not meet academic standards. The load-bearing evidence for this claim is external and directly quoted: MBFC's own 'About' page disclaimer ('not a tested scientific method'), its methodology page's unexplained weighted rubrics (e.g., 'Economic System (35%)...'), its inaccessible raw scores, and its arbitrary binning. Those are observations of MBFC's own outputs and descriptions, not quantities derived from the paper's own model or fitted to its own conclusions. The literature-audit claim that 3.50% (372) of papers in the sample use MBFC is based on a snowball sample seeded from Scopus and expanded via OpenAlex, Crossref, and OpenCitations; it is an empirical count, not a quantity whose construction already assumes the paper's conclusion. The paper explicitly acknowledges the audit's incompleteness ('We expect that 3.50% is an underestimate'; 'for 61% of papers, we are unable to fetch the actual manuscript text'), which is a limitation on the strength of the universal negative claim but not a circularity. The one self-citation, [33], is used only for a contextual lexical observation ('Consistent with our previous work [33], the proper nouns show that studies that mention MBFC focus on social media'), not as proof of the central methodological critique, so it is not load-bearing. No equation or fitted parameter is reused as a 'prediction,' and no result is defined in terms of its own conclusion. The paper is self-contained against an external target object (MBFC's website and API) and an independently constructed literature database; any weakness in the 'no papers adequately describe MBFC' claim stems from sample coverage, not from circular derivation.

Axiom & Free-Parameter Ledger

1 free parameters · 3 axioms · 0 invented entities

The paper's central claims rely on the completeness of the literature sample, the accuracy of MBFC's published documentation as a description of its actual scoring, and the acceptance of a specific critical-theory framework for interpreting MBFC's popularity. No numerical free parameters are load-bearing; only a descriptive power-law exponent is reported.

free parameters (1)
  • Citation rank distribution power-law exponent α = 1.93
    Fit to the rank-frequency distribution in Figure 4 to illustrate the snowball sample's skew toward highly cited papers. Descriptive only; not used in the central argument about MBFC's methodology.
axioms (3)
  • domain assumption The snowball sampling procedure, seeded from Scopus records for 'Media Bias/Fact Check' and extended via OpenAlex/Crossref/OpenCitations, reaches near-saturation for papers using MBFC.
    The literature-wide claims (prevalence estimates and the 'no papers adequately describe MBFC' finding) depend on this; the paper itself reports that manuscript text was unavailable for 61% of papers (Section III B).
  • domain assumption MBFC's published methodology pages accurately reflect its actual internal scoring and data-generation process.
    Section II's critique treats the rubrics and bin definitions [21, 23, 24] as the operative methodology, even though MBFC's internal −10 to +10 scores and original point scales are not exposed to users.
  • ad hoc to paper The Gramscian/Marxist conception of hegemony and the historiography of the 'liberal media' critique provide a valid explanatory framework for MBFC's design and scholarly acceptance.
    Sections V B–D use this framework to argue that MBFC 'quantifies hegemony'; it is presented through citations [18,19,37–39] rather than derived from the measured data.

reviewed 2026-08-02 · how reviews work

0 comments
Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/3NJBYNZP

@misc{pith2026260712108,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Stop using Media Bias/Fact Check in research},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/3NJBYNZP}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2607.12108}
}
Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN
read the original abstract

Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) purports to quantify the bias, credibility, and factuality of reporting for roughly 10,000 media sources, and the resulting data is commonly used in misinformation research. In the present study, we show that MBFC's methodology does not meet basic standards of rigor for academic research. Despite its widespread prevalence, studies using MBFC rarely examine it carefully, often describing it in ways that contradict its ``About'' page, or treating it as authoritative despite MBFC's disclaimer that it is ``not a tested scientific method... [but] a simple guide to the idea of a source's bias.'' We identified no papers that adequately describe MBFC as the opinions of a single person or critically engage with its methodology in order to justify proceeding with its use. We argue that MBFC's data is not neutral or accurate, but a computationally legible account of hegemony, a specious dataset for uncritical research that mistakes the familiarity of the concepts it quantifies with accuracy. Our study concludes with a call for academic researchers to stop using MBFC. MBFC's data quantifies the results of political processes, including campaigns to discredit the press, and presents them as simple facts about the world, thus reproducing the crisis misinformation scholarship exists to address.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2607.12108 by Alejandro Javier Ruiz Iglesias, Ashley M.A. Fehr, Christopher M. Danforth, Julia Witte Zimmerman, Peter Sheridan Dodds.

Figure 1
Figure 1. Figure 1: shows counts of sources in MBFC’s dataset grouped by their {bias} ratings. This scale presents problems of interpretation. The left-to-right values are, as one might expect, ordinal values that can be arranged along a one-dimensional spectrum, but it is difficult to explain or understand why ⟨pro￾science⟩, ⟨questionable⟩, ⟨satire⟩, and ⟨conspiracy￾pseudoscience⟩, categorical values outside that spec￾trum, … view at source ↗
Figure 2
Figure 2. Figure 2: FIG. 2 [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p005_2.png] view at source ↗
Figure 3
Figure 3. Figure 3: FIG. 3: The snowball sampling process looks at the text [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p006_3.png] view at source ↗
Figure 4
Figure 4. Figure 4: FIG. 4: Rank by citation count, with the most cited [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p007_4.png] view at source ↗
Figure 5
Figure 5. Figure 5: FIG. 5: An illustration of the single point of reliance on [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p014_5.png] view at source ↗

Review history (2 revisions) →

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

86 extracted references · 5 linked inside Pith

  1. [1]

    For each paper, find both inbound and outbound citations

  2. [2]

    For both the resulting inbound and outbound cita- tions, use metadata databases OpenAlex, Crossref, and OpenCitations to find metadata and a link to a PDF version of the paper

  3. [3]

    Fetch the PDF, if possible

  4. [4]

    Scan the manuscript text of the paper for references to MBFC

  5. [5]

    Me- dia Bias/Fact Check

    If the paper contains a reference to MBFC, return to step 1. We then run the sampler to its natural end, i.e., until no new papers are found to re-seed the algorithm. Choose a seed paper Find inbound and outbound citations Query for metadata & PDF link Download PDF (if available) Scan PDF text for “MBFC” Reference to MBFC found?Add citing andcited papers ...

    2016

  6. [6]

    Horawalavithana, R

    S. Horawalavithana, R. De Silva, N. Weerasekara, N. G. Kin Wai, M. Nabeel, B. Abayaratna, C. Elvitigala, P. Wi- jesekera, and A. Iamnitchi, Vaccination trials on hold: Malicious and low credibility content on Twitter during the AstraZeneca COVID-19 vaccine development, Com- putational and Mathematical Organization Theory 29, 448 (2022)

    2022

  7. [7]

    Singh, L

    L. Singh, L. Bode, C. Budak, K. Kawintiranon, C. Pad- den, and E. K. Vraga, Understanding high- and low- quality url sharing on COVID-19 Twitter streams, Jour- nal of Computational Social Science 3, 343 (2020)

    2020

  8. [8]

    Zhang, L

    Y. Zhang, L. Wang, J. J. H. Zhu, and X. Wang, Conspir- acy vs science: A large-scale analysis of online discussion cascades, World Wide Web 24, 585 (2021)

    2021

  9. [9]

    G. Etta, M. Cinelli, A. Galeazzi, C. M. Valensise, W. Quattrociocchi, and M. Conti, Comparing the im- pact of social media regulations on news consumption, IEEE Transactions on Computational Social Systems 10 (2022)

    2022

  10. [10]

    Cinelli, G

    M. Cinelli, G. De Francisci Morales, A. Galeazzi, W. Quattrociocchi, and M. Starnini, The echo cham- ber effect on social media, Proceedings of the National Academy of Sciences 118, e2023301118 (2021)

    2021

  11. [11]

    Cinelli, W

    M. Cinelli, W. Quattrociocchi, A. Galeazzi, C. M. Valen- sise, E. Brugnoli, A. L. Schmidt, P. Zola, F. Zollo, and A. Scala, The COVID-19 social media infodemic, Scien- tific Reports 10, 16598 (2020)

    2020

  12. [12]

    Gallotti, F

    R. Gallotti, F. Valle, N. Castaldo, P. Sacco, and M. De Domenico, Assessing the risks of ‘infodemics’ in response to COVID-19 epidemics, Nature Human Be- haviour 4, 1285 (2020)

    2020

  13. [13]

    Bovet and H

    A. Bovet and H. A. Makse, Influence of fake news in Twitter during the 2016 US presidential election, Nature Communications 10, 7 (2019)

    2016

  14. [14]

    Wunsch, C

    G. Wunsch, C. Gourbin, and F. Russo, Big Data, Demog- raphy, and Causality, Open Journal of Social Sciences12, 181 (2024)

    2024

  15. [15]

    Odhner, Mediabiasfactcheck.com as a tool for lateral reading (2024), accessed: 2026-04-03

    K. Odhner, Mediabiasfactcheck.com as a tool for lateral reading (2024), accessed: 2026-04-03

    2024

  16. [16]

    Wichita State University Libraries, Evaluating news sources (n.d.), libGuide; Accessed: 2026-04-03

    2026

  17. [17]

    USC Upstate Library, Know your news (2025), libGuide; Accessed: 2026-04-03

    2025

  18. [18]

    Marx and F

    K. Marx and F. Engels, The german ideology (1845)

  19. [19]

    Gruppi, B

    M. Gruppi, B. D. Horne, and S. Adalı, NELA-GT- 2020: A Large Multi-Labelled News Dataset for The Study of Misinformation in News Articles (2021), arXiv:2102.04567 [cs]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2020

  20. [20]

    H. Lin, J. Lasser, S. Lewandowsky, R. Cole, A. Gully, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, High level of correspon- dence across different news domain quality rating sets, PNAS Nexus 2, 1 (2023)

    2023

  21. [21]

    Nørregaard, B

    J. Nørregaard, B. D. Horne, and S. Adalı, NELA-GT- 16 2018: A Large Multi-Labelled News Dataset for the Study of Misinformation in News Articles, Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and So- cial Media 13, 630 (2019)

    2018

  22. [22]

    Ground News, Ground news rating system, https://gr ound.news/rating-system (2026), accessed: 2026-04-03

    2026

  23. [23]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media bias/fact check, Website (2025), accessed: 2025-11-05

    2025

  24. [24]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media Bias/Fact Check: Methodology, https://web.archive.org/web/20251112074011/htt ps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ (2025)

    arXiv 2025

  25. [25]

    Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited by Q

    A. Gramsci, Selections from the Prison Notebooks, edited by Q. Hoare and G. Nowell Smith (International Publish- ers, New York, 1971)

    1971

  26. [26]

    Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978)

    L. Kolakowski, Main Currents of Marxism: The Founders, The Golden Age, The Breakdown (Clarendon Press, Oxford, 1978)

    1978

  27. [27]

    D. V. Zandt, Methodology (2026)

    2026

  28. [28]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media Bias/Fact Check: Methodology, https://web.archive.org/web/20190203144044/htt ps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ (2019)

    arXiv 2019

  29. [29]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media Bias/Fact Check: Methodology, https://web.archive.org/web/20240131160330/htt ps://mediabiasfactcheck.com/methodology/ (2024)

    arXiv 2024

  30. [30]

    Elsevier, Scopus, https://www.scopus.com (2004), ac- cessed: 2026-04-03

    2004

  31. [31]

    D. V. Zandt, Country methodology, https://mediabia sfactcheck.com/country- methodology/ (2023), ac- cessed: 2026-01-05

    2023

  32. [32]

    Enemies of the United States (2026)

    2026

  33. [33]

    Ammar, D

    W. Ammar, D. Groeneveld, C. Bhagavatula, I. Beltagy, M. Crawford, D. Downey, J. Dunkelberger, A. Elgohary, S. Feldman, V. Ha, R. Kinney, S. Kohlmeier, K. Lo, T. Murray, H.-H. Ooi, M. Peters, J. Power, S. Skjons- berg, L. L. Wang, C. Wilhelm, Z. Yuan, M. van Zuylen, and O. Etzioni, Construction of the literature graph in semantic scholar (2018), arXiv:1805...

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  34. [34]

    Priem, H

    J. Priem, H. Piwowar, and R. Orr, Openalex: A fully- open index of scholarly works, authors, venues, institu- tions, and concepts (2022)

    2022

  35. [35]

    Peroni and D

    S. Peroni and D. Shotton, Opencitations, an in- frastructure organization for open scholarship (2019), arXiv:1906.11964 [cs.DL]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2019

  36. [36]

    Raza and C

    S. Raza and C. Ding, Fake news detection based on news content and social contexts: A transformer-based ap- proach, International Journal of Data Science and An- alytics 13, 335 (2022)

    2022

  37. [37]

    Google, Google scholar (2026)

    2026

  38. [38]

    P. Qi, Y. Zhang, Y. Zhang, J. Bolton, and C. D. Manning, Stanza: A python natural language processing toolkit for many human languages, in Proceedings of the 58th An- nual Meeting of the Association for Computational Lin- guistics: System Demonstrations (2020) pp. 101–108

    2020

  39. [39]

    A. J. Ruiz Iglesias, D. Bennett, J. W. Zimmerman, C. M. Danforth, and P. S. Dodds, False memories to fake news: The evolution of the term ”misinformation” in academic literature (2026), arXiv:2602.22395 [cs.LG]

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2026

  40. [40]

    Flamino, A

    J. Flamino, A. Galeazzi, S. Feldman, M. W. Macy, B. Cross, Z. Zhou, M. Serafino, A. Bovet, H. A. Makse, and B. K. Szymanski, Political polarization of news me- dia and influencers on Twitter in the 2016 and 2020 US presidential elections, Nature Human Behaviour 7, 904 (2023)

    2016

  41. [41]

    Zhou and R

    X. Zhou and R. Zafarani, A survey of fake news: Funda- mental theories, detection methods, and opportunities, arXiv preprint arXiv:1812.00315 (2018), v2, last re- vised 17 Jul 2020

    Pith/arXiv arXiv 2018

  42. [42]

    Grieco, Cable news fact sheet (2023)

    E. Grieco, Cable news fact sheet (2023)

    2023

  43. [43]

    A. J. Bauer, Making the Liberal Media: How Conser- vatives Built a Movement Against the Press (Columbia University Press, New York, 2026)

    2026

  44. [44]

    the Liberal Media

    D. Greenberg, The Idea of “the Liberal Media” and Its Roots in the Civil Rights Movement, The Sixties 1, 167 (2008)

    2008

  45. [45]

    E. S. Herman, The Myth of the Liberal Media: An Edward Herman Reader (Peter Lang, New York, 1999)

    1999

  46. [46]

    E. S. Herman and N. Chomsky, Manufacturing consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media (Pantheon Books, New York, 1988)

    1988

  47. [47]

    Hart, Meet the Myth-Makers (1998)

    P. Hart, Meet the Myth-Makers (1998)

    1998

  48. [48]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media bias/fact check: Hufftingon post (2026)

    2026

  49. [49]

    Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, Expanded Edition (Dialog Press, Washing- ton, DC, 2002)

    E. Black, IBM and the Holocaust: The Strategic Alliance Between Nazi Germany and America’s Most Powerful Corporation, Expanded Edition (Dialog Press, Washing- ton, DC, 2002)

    2002

  50. [50]

    Z. Elward, Fascist Corporativism and the Myth of the New State: The Construction of the Totalitarian State in Italy , Master’s thesis, Central European University (2023), submitted in partial fulfillment of the require- ments for the degree of Masters of Arts

    2023

  51. [51]

    Forbes, Saudi Arabia (2023), accessed: 2026-03-01

    2023

  52. [52]

    Saudi Arabian Oil Company (Saudi Aramco), Who we are (2018), archived version; accessed 2026-03-01

    2018

  53. [53]

    D. M. Van Zandt, Media bias/fact check: Arab news, Website (2025), accessed: 2026-06-12

    2025

  54. [54]

    Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962)

    M. Friedman, Capitalism and Freedom (University of Chicago Press, Chicago, 1962)

    1962

  55. [55]

    indicative planning

    (though, without citations, we cannot be sure). Un- like the dismissive posture taken towards the aforemen- tioned socialist tradition, free market absolutism is pre- sented on its own terms. The rubric does not engage with arguments that markets are not spontaneous, but political creations [56, 57], often coerced into being with military force, and, in t...

    2016

  56. [56]

    Engels, The principles of communism (1847)

    F. Engels, The principles of communism (1847)

  57. [57]

    Marx, Critique of the gotha programme (1875), writ- ten in 1875; first published in 1891

    K. Marx, Critique of the gotha programme (1875), writ- ten in 1875; first published in 1891

  58. [58]

    V. I. Lenin, The State and Revolution: The Marxist The- ory of the State and the Tasks of the Proletariat in the Revolution (Marxists Internet Archive, Online, 1917)

    1917

  59. [59]

    N. P. Trong, A number of theoretical and practical issues on socialism and the path to socialism in vietnam (2021)

    2021

  60. [60]

    National People’s Congress of the People’s Republic of China, Constitution of the People’s Republic of China (2023)

    2023

  61. [61]

    F. A. Hayek, A Free-Market Monetary System (Institute of Economic Affairs, London, 1976)

    1976

  62. [62]

    Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Beacon Press, Boston, 1944)

    K. Polanyi, The Great Transformation: The Political and Economic Origins of Our Time (Beacon Press, Boston, 1944)

    1944

  63. [63]

    E. P. Thompson, The Making of the English Working Class (Victor Gollancz Ltd., London, 1963)

    1963

  64. [64]

    Bevins, The Jakarta Method: Washington ’s Anti- communist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World (PublicAffairs, New York, 2020)

    V. Bevins, The Jakarta Method: Washington ’s Anti- communist Crusade and the Mass Murder Program that Shaped Our World (PublicAffairs, New York, 2020)

    2020

  65. [65]

    Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Cap- italism (Metropolitan Books, 2007)

    N. Klein, The Shock Doctrine: The Rise of Disaster Cap- italism (Metropolitan Books, 2007)

    2007

  66. [66]

    Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House, Brooklyn, NY, 2011)

    D. Graeber, Debt: The First 5,000 Years (Melville House, Brooklyn, NY, 2011)

    2011

  67. [67]

    Prashad, Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations (NYU Press, New York, 2020)

    V. Prashad, Washington Bullets: A History of the CIA, Coups, and Assassinations (NYU Press, New York, 2020)

    2020

  68. [68]

    Golub, Charles de gaulle’s economic policy in 1965– 17 1969 (2025), sSRN Working Paper

    G. Golub, Charles de gaulle’s economic policy in 1965– 17 1969 (2025), sSRN Working Paper

    1965

  69. [69]

    Coletta, The defense budget through administrations (2021)

    E. Coletta, The defense budget through administrations (2021)

    2021

  70. [70]

    House Committee on Appropriations Democrats, Repub- licans advance largest pentagon budget in history while cutting billions from domestic investments (2026)

    2026

  71. [71]

    J. M. Cypher, The origins and evolution of military key- nesianism in the united states, Journal of Post Keynesian Economics 38, 449 (2015)

    2015

  72. [72]

    POLITICO Staff, Election results 2016: Live presidential map by state, county and district (2016)

    2016

  73. [73]

    Pew Research Center, Social media fact sheet (2025)

    2025

  74. [74]

    R. M. Webb and L. Kurtz, Politics v. science: How pres- ident trump’s war on science impacted public health and environmental regulation, Progress in Molecular Biology and Translational Science 188, 65 (2022)

    2022

  75. [75]

    T. M. Porter, Trust in Numbers: The Pursuit of Objec- tivity in Science and Public Life (Princeton University Press, Princeton, NJ, 1995)

    1995

  76. [76]

    H. Lin, J. Lasser, S. Lewandowsky, R. Cole, A. Gully, D. G. Rand, and G. Pennycook, High level of correspon- dence across different news domain quality rating sets, PNAS Nexus 2, pgad286 (2023)

    2023

  77. [77]

    Ad Fontes Media, Methodology (2026), accessed: 2026- 06-09

    2026

  78. [78]

    de Tocqueville, L’Ancien R´ egime et la R´ evolution (Michel L´ evy Fr` eres, Paris, 1856)

    A. de Tocqueville, L’Ancien R´ egime et la R´ evolution (Michel L´ evy Fr` eres, Paris, 1856)

  79. [79]

    Chen, Australia’s conservative Liberal Party abandons net zero policy, Reuters (2025), accessed 2026-01-16

    C. Chen, Australia’s conservative Liberal Party abandons net zero policy, Reuters (2025), accessed 2026-01-16

    2025

  80. [80]

    Hume, Of the first principles of government, inEssays, Moral, Political, and Literary (1777)

    D. Hume, Of the first principles of government, inEssays, Moral, Political, and Literary (1777)

Showing first 80 references.

This paper was first reviewed by deepseek-v4-flash on August 2, 2026.