“WAR IS PEACE.  FREEDOM IS SLAVERY.  IGNORANCE IS STRENGTH.”

– George Orwell, 1984

George Orwell understood well that language has the power to shape reality in the human imagination.  An accomplished novelist and journalist, his classic dystopian novel 1984 serves as a cautionary tale.^[1]  It explores themes of totalitarianism, mass surveillance, and thought repression.  In it, the ruling Party used special language to manipulate the people into loyal compliance.  Disturbingly, and with great irony, this mass deception led most to believe the Party’s authoritarianism was protecting their freedom.

This article explores the premise that, metaphorically speaking, “the Party” has convinced many Americans a vote for falsehoods is a vote for truth.  A vote for autocracy is a vote for freedom.  We are inundated daily with attention-grabbing headlines, exaggerated and misleading news stories, and blatant lies on a scale not seen since perhaps the Civil War era.  From attention-seeking social media feeds to partisan news sources, the deceptive language of the Party takes on many forms.  They speak in ways that resonate with the people’s perceptions of the truth in lieu of actual truth, skewing reality into an imaginary fantasyland.  Villains are the champions.  True heroes are the villains.

The evidence, as we will explore, demonstrates that many Americans are falling for it.  For example, one study demonstrated a large majority of middle school and high school students confused a sponsored ad for a real news story.  A large majority also believed a fake social media post with a doctored image was real.^[2]  Surveys as well show an increasing number of us readily believe in conspiracy theories and falsehoods, in spite of the availability of evidence against them.  While some studies argue that polls should not be treated as determinative of strongly held beliefs, their chief argument is that polls reflect people’s ignorance as well – which only supports the point here.  Logic, reason, and well-informed deliberation are giving way to some combination of ignorant surmising as well as stubbornly-held false beliefs and partisan loyalty.^[3][4][5]

Clearly, critical evaluation skills are not being learned or utilized sufficiently in the United States.  Our best defense against being fooled is to critically think about information and information sources.  If we are to make reasonable decisions, we must know how to effectively and accurately deduce what’s true and what isn’t.  Decisions like who to vote for in an election… or who not to vote for.

Therefore in this article, we begin with a primer on information and media literacy.  These are the skills that information professionals (e.g. librarians, journalists) use to critically evaluate the accuracy and bias of information and information sources.  Given the fact that America’s 18^th century Founders wisely intended for electors (voting citizens) to be well-informed, discerning, rational, and deliberative individuals,^[6] every voting citizen should be skillfully using the critical evaluation framework to understand the news and make better election choices.

With these evaluation skills in hand, this article then reviews the six most popular information sources trusted by right-leaning Americans.^[7]  Rather than reiterate partisan talking points, the six are scrutinized for accuracy using the impartial critical framework.  For fairness, a brief review of left-leaning and centered information sources then follows, using the same critical eye.

By the conclusion of this article, you will have a keen sense of the media landscape.  You will learn some of the most, and least, trustworthy news sources.  Most importantly of all, you will learn how to critically evaluate news sources for yourself, rather than make assumptions about what to trust or not.

About the Series

Before continuing, it’s worth noting that this article is part four in the “America is Becoming a Dictatorship.  Here’s Why” series.  While the first three parts are meant to be read in sequence, this article was written to stand alone, and can be read on its own.

It also fundamentally relates to the greater problem addressed by the whole series.  The series is a fact-based evaluation of what’s been happening to undermine the constitutional rule of law and democratic participation in the United States during the second Trump administration.  This might seem like partisan propaganda to some readers.  But it avoids assuming left-leaning talking points, relying instead on just the facts and the impartial framework of evaluation we will soon delve into.  Furthermore, a list of cited sources is found at the end of each article to support the arguments made.  You are encouraged to independently review and confirm the facts and findings for yourself.

If interested, here are links to the previous articles in this series: Part I, Part II, Part III.

And now, we continue to our primer on information and media literacy.

Knowing is Half the Battle

In an era of viral headlines, algorithmically curated feeds, and wall-to-wall punditry, many Americans believe they encounter false information often.  And we find it difficult to know what’s true or not.^[8]  Trust in journalists and national news organizations has continued to decline in recent polls, and more considerably among right-leaning voters.^[9]  One in five Americans now relies on news influencers (social media posters and podcasters) for their news, whom they perceive (?) to be independent and more trustworthy voices.^[10][11]

The ability to distinguish reliable information from misleading content has inarguably become the most valuable skill a citizen can possess in this era replete with false and misleading information.  Without this ability, we’re susceptible to believe in false news and to doubt the facts.  Once misinformed, we invariably make bad decisions: we vote for bad actors and bad policies that ultimately hurt us all.

Information and media literacy are learnable skills that enable us to locate and critically evaluate information for accuracy and credibility, and to ethically and effectively use information.^[12]  Research has found that explicit instruction in media evaluation measurably improves our ability to recognize false information online.^[13][14]  It’s therefore a fundamental cornerstone of critical thinking and democratic participation to master these vital skills.^[15]

A Primer on Media & Information Literacy

Before we can meaningfully critique any information sources, we first need to learn and establish a shared framework for evaluation.  In his 2017 TED talk on information literacy, Kevin Arms offered a simple three-question test that remains a useful starting point for us when we encounter new information online.^[16]  His tutorial is briefly explored and expanded upon here.

Who is the author?  The first step in evaluating a news piece is determining who wrote or said it.  A legitimate article or news clip should carry a real byline attached to a real person whose credentials can be verified.  Take a moment to search the author’s name.  Do they have a professional background in the subject they’re writing or speaking about?  Are they affiliated with a reputable institution?  Do they have a track record of sound reporting?  Or have they instead been credibly accused of fabrication, plagiarism, or bad faith argumentation (e.g. from losing a defamation lawsuit)?  Anonymous posts and pseudonymous influencers, as well as known authors whose entire digital footprint consists of a single ideologically charged web presence, all of these are red flags.

Where did this information come from?  Next, examine the publisher or broadcaster of the piece, and the sources cited if any.  Reputable news outlets employ editors, fact-checkers, and transparent corrections policies; fringe sites generally do not.  Check the publication’s broader reputation: the News Literacy Project, the Columbia Journalism Review, and academic library guides on information literacy (such as those compiled by the LIS Education Network) all offer useful background on specific outlets.^[17][18][19]  FactCheck.org, Media Bias / Fact Check, and Ad Fontes Media are a few of the major independent fact checking organizations that further provide detailed profiles on a wide range of media outlets and news influencers based on transparent and methodical analysis of the facts.^[20][21][22]  Scrutinize the posts and articles themselves for warning signs: typos, broken hyperlinks, unsourced statistics, and quotations that cannot be traced to their original context.  Lateral reading, a technique where you open new tabs to independently verify claims rather than staying on the original source, is one of the more reliable habits you can build.^[23]

Is this article credible?  This third question Mr. Arms proposes is usually the easiest to answer since it follows directly from the first two.  An unknown or discredited author publishing on an unknown or discredited platform, with no verifiable sourcing and no editorial oversight, is almost certainly not a credible source regardless of how compelling the headline or topic feels.  Credibility is not about whether a story “feels” right or confirms your existing beliefs: it’s about whether the people and institutions behind it can be trusted to report honestly, and whether their claims can be independently and factually verified.

To learn more about information and media literacy, the Poynter Institute has an abundance of free training materials.  They also include AI literacy and civics materials, which are also vital for all voting citizens to learn.^[24]

Bias vs Reliability

In addition to Mr. Arms’s three questions, let’s clarify a common mistake made in media criticism.  That mistake is to conflate a source’s political slant with its factual reliability.  There is certainly a correlation between the two.  But media bias and reliability have a more nuanced relationship.  Ad Fontes Media regularly updates their Media Bias Chart.  Maintained by a team of analysts using a published methodology for transparency, the chart plots news outlets on two independent axes: left-right political bias on the horizontal and factual reliability on the vertical.^[25]

Reading the chart carefully yields three broad tiers.  At the top are fact-based news sources.  They are characterized as having relatively neutral bias and high factual accuracy and reliability.  These sources certainly belong at the center of any serious news diet.

Below them lies a very wide band of analysis and opinion journalism.  While this tends to carry visible political leanings either left or right, some nonetheless rigorously argue and empirically ground their viewpoints in a rational, fact-based manner.  Other sources in this category are not as rigorous.  One must therefore evaluate each on its own terms with detached scrutiny.  Pieces from such sources are perhaps more valuable as secondary, thought-provoking reading, after one has first reviewed the news from fact-based news sources.

At the bottom of the chart sits content characterized by strong bias and low factual accuracy.  Some of this is misinformation: false, potentially harmful claims apparently made out of ignorance.  Some is disinformation: deliberately false and harmful lies, often with intent to further some underhanded objective.  And then there is outright propaganda: disinformation that’s been specifically orchestrated to serve a partisan cause.  The most hyper-partisan outlets on either end of the political spectrum consistently cluster in this bottom tier.

Putting Right-Leaning News Sources to the Test

The same information and media literacy skills can be employed for all news sources equally – from hyper-partisan left, to hyper-partisan right, and everything in between.  This article is primarily concerned with the credibility of right-leaning sources, for reasons which we will discover as we go.  For fairness, left-leaning sources are addressed later in this article.

With our brief primer on information and media literacy skills concluded, we now employ them to critique the most popular right-leaning media sources in America.  We begin with the most trusted news source among right-leaning Americans of all.

Fox News

Media literacy is only useful if we apply it.  Let’s now ask the three critical questions about one of the most influential news networks in America: Fox News.  Will we find that Fox News meets the standards of a fact-based outlet?  And do its own courtroom admissions and internal records corroborate or contradict its professed public image as “fair and balanced” journalism?

Recent litigation has clearly answered these questions.  Why?  As discussed in our media literacy primer, evidence of bad faith argumentation or fabrication can be very telling about the quality of a given news source.  And lawsuits produce something most media criticism cannot: the sworn testimony and internal private communications between Fox’s news hosts, employees, and corporate officers.  We can therefore compare what they say privately to each other with what they say to the public on air.

The Lawsuits

In 2020, former Playboy model Karen McDougal sued Fox News for defamation after Fox host Tucker Carlson described her as an extortionist on air.  Donald Trump would later be criminally convicted of falsifying business records and payments made to hide a scandal from the voting public during the 2016 presidential election: his extramarital sexual relations with McDougal.^[26]  To defeat the suit, Fox’s own attorneys argued in court that no reasonable viewer would take the Fox host’s statements as fact.  U.S. District Judge Mary Kay Vyskocil agreed, writing that Carlson “is not ‘stating actual facts’ about the topics he discusses and is instead engaging in ‘exaggeration’ and ‘non-literal commentary,’” and that any reasonable viewer arrives at his show “with an appropriate amount of skepticism.”^[27]

One might reasonably expect this legal victory to have come at a steep journalistic cost.  After all, Fox’s own legal defense team conceded that Tucker Carlson, its highest-rated primetime host at the time, was not in the business of reporting facts.  Yet Fox remains among the most watched primetime news networks in America.^[28]  It seems Judge Vyskocil’s optimism about his viewership’s skepticism is therefore unjustified.

The Dominion Voting Systems case against Fox News three years later was far more damning.  After Fox spent weeks promoting baseless claims that Dominion’s voting machines had flipped votes from Trump to Biden in 2020, Dominion sued for defamation and won.  Fox conceded to settle out of court after evidence seizure by the authorities collected a flood of revealing internal text messages and emails.  These messages tell us exactly how the range of Fox hosts, staffers, and executives privately felt and communicated to one another about a few recurring guests on their programs.^[29][30]

Among their privately talked-about guests was Sidney Powell, Trump’s attorney who heavily promoted his lie that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him.  Nearly 70 lawsuits and repeated electoral recounts definitively proved this stolen election claim was certainly false.^[31][32][33]  Powell furthermore participated in criminal schemes in support of Trump’s election fraud lie, including racketeering and illegally seizing voting machines during the first Trump administration’s final months.  Powell was criminally indicted by a court of law in 2023.  Hypocritically, Powell pleaded guilty to conspiring to commit election fraud on behalf of Donald Trump.^[34]

Another recurring Fox guest the private Fox messages focused on was Rudy Giuliani, another of Trump’s disgraced attorneys.  While leading Trump’s legal team and its nearly 70 lawsuits to overturn election results, Giuliani was disbarred from practicing law for repeatedly lying in court in his efforts to fraudulently reverse election results in favor of Trump.^[35][36]  In a separate case, he lost a lawsuit from election workers whose lives and livelihoods were threatened and devastated after Giuliani falsely accused them of election fraud against Trump in the 2020 election.^[37]

Before becoming convicted felons, Powell and Giuliani were both recurring guests of Fox hosts including Tucker Carlson, Laura Ingraham, Sean Hannity, and others.   On the air, the hosts generally favored and supported their guests and their election fraud narratives.  However, seized messages during the Dominion lawsuit showed that Carlson privately told Ingraham that “Sidney Powell is lying by the way.  I caught her.  It’s insane.”  Ingraham replied that Powell was “a complete nut” and that “no one will work with her.  Ditto with Rudy [Giuliani].”  After a Fox senior vice president told Carlson’s producer “so many people openly denying the obvious that Powell is clearly full of it,” his producer called Powell “a fucking nutcase.”  Sean Hannity testified under oath that he “did not believe [Powell’s narrative] for one second.”  Even Fox News owner Rupert Murdoch himself privately described Rudy Giuliani’s claims as “really crazy stuff.”^[38]

Yet Fox kept booking Powell and Giuliani anyway.  Internal Fox communications revealed why.  The network zeroed in on fraud claims as a way to boost ratings and appease their conservative viewers.  In other words, Fox knew full well it was platforming liars and their lies.  But Fox gave them air time because they expected Fox viewers would be upset by the truth: they opted instead to preserve their ratings and revenue by supporting the lies their viewers wanted to hear.  On April 18, 2023, on the eve of trial, Fox paid Dominion $787.5 million, the largest known defamation settlement in American media history.  Fox then acknowledged “the Court’s rulings finding certain claims about Dominion to be false.”^[39][40]

This is not an isolated pattern of deceit.  Fox-owned outlets have faced numerous additional lawsuits involving on-air misrepresentations.  For example, another voting technology company, Smartmatic, has a $2.7 billion defamation suit against Fox proceeding through New York courts.  A separate bribery case involving four Smartmatic executives and Philippines government officials was raised by Fox’s defense team, though this bore no direct relevance to the defamation lawsuit.  A New York appeals court ruled that the defamation case must go forward.  Otherwise similar to the Dominion lawsuit, Fox hosts Maria Bartiromo, Lou Dobbs, and Jeanine Pirro are more prominently exposed here for their self-incriminating private sentiments.  Notably, Pirro’s own producer privately called her a “reckless maniac.”  After one of her shows, he texted that it was “rife [with] conspiracy theories and bs and is yet another example of why this woman should never be on live television.”  Pirro’s motives and bias were revealed when she said to the RNC chairman in Sept. 2020, “I’m the No. 1 watched show on news cable all weekend.  I work so hard for the President and the party.”  Pirro now serves in the second Trump administration as U.S. attorney in Washington, D.C.^[41][42]  You do the math.

Let’s now apply the information literacy framework: a publisher whose own defense in court is “don’t believe our most-watched host,” who pays nearly a billion dollars rather than let internal records be aired and more publicly humiliate and discredit the network at trial, fails the credibility test by any reasonable standard.  The Fox culture of ratings-centric greed at expense to news quality and integrity does not help their credibility either.

The Stories

Even without the evidence from the lawsuits, critical thinking and media literacy skills expose a pattern of reporting falsehoods across the span of Fox stories over the decades.  Here we focus on three Fox stories to make the point.  The reader is encouraged to apply the impartial framework of media literacy to any number of Fox articles and episodes: you will undoubtedly discover they demonstrate the same pattern of falsity.

For example, consider the Fox article, “Agents detail ‘daily’ border fence battle, seek post-Obama ‘restart.’”  With obvious partisan flair, the piece conjures an image of the wild west at the southern border with Mexico under President Obama.  It follows with the vague claim of a single border patrol agent that they “were not allowed to do their jobs.”  Two more anecdotes are provided to make their case.  One scenario involves an individual breaching a fence.  Another concerns a vehicle that was allowed to pass a security checkpoint.  It is assumed, without evidence, to be a drug cartel’s vehicle.  The article concludes that vast gangs of criminal migrants are therefore overwhelming our southern border with Mexico.^[43]

To begin with, factual demographic data tells a very different story.  While minor security improvements were needed under the Obama administration, the records and statistics from both the U.S. Customs and Border Patrol and the U.S. Department of Homeland Security prove we had a highly secured border.  So do professional analyses conducted by many reputable organizations staffed by experts in the field.  Concerning unauthorized immigrants in the United States, the percentage with criminal records is about 3% – slightly lower than the rate for American citizens.  This includes minor infractions, like stealing a box of cereal or possession of marijuana.  Serious criminal offenses are a significantly lower percentage, with gang affiliated criminals accounting for less than one-tenth of one percent.  While Fox claims that all asylees were allowed entry and residence, 55% of asylum cases were rejected during the Obama administration.  And while Fox affirms Trump’s lie that hordes of murderers, rapists, gang members, and other mostly young male criminal migrants are overwhelming the southern border, CBP and DHS data conclusively show that families and unaccompanied children fleeing violence and poverty in Central America make up an enormous majority of southwest border encounters, with single adult numbers historically low compared to the 1990s and early 2000s.^{[44][45][46][47][48][49]}

The Fox framing inverts the evidence.  It would be one thing to support the reasonable need for border security and customs enforcement for the handful of migrant criminals in the country.  But Fox instead falsely casts criminal aspersions onto an entire population that has, on the contrary, been largely victimized by criminals in Mexico and elsewhere along their journeys to the border.^[50]  Furthermore, logic 101 flags this story immediately as making the Anecdotal Fallacy: the logical fallacy of broadly generalizing based on one or a few anecdotal stories.  It draws a sweeping conclusion based on a few cherry-picked and poorly validated stories.  It’s the logical equivalent of claiming that smoking is not bad for you because you had an uncle who smoked his whole life and lived to 90; this argument ignores other factors like genetics, dismisses the majority of cases where smokers ended up with lung, throat, or mouth cancer, demonstrates the storyteller’s incapacity to grasp elementary statistics, and dismisses the entire scientific body of evidence which proves beyond doubt the damaging health impact of smoking.  Likewise, finding one or a few unauthorized immigrants with criminal records does not indicate that all unauthorized immigrants have criminal records.^[51]

Next, the May 29, 2024 Jesse Watters Primetime segment claims Trump’s several criminal cases at the time were fabricated by his political enemies.^[52]  Apply question one: the author.  Watters is a primetime opinion host whose program the fact-checking organization Ad Fontes Media rates as substantially further-right and lower in factual reliability than Fox’s straight news desk.^[53]  Exemplifying his motivations for producing such false broadcasts, the Smartmatic suit’s discovery process revealed a text Watters sent to a Fox colleague, “Think of how incredible our ratings would be if Fox went ALL in on STOP THE STEAL.”^[54]  Apply question two: sources.  The falsehood-packed segment offers many rapid-fire assertions in place of evidence.  It recycles disproven Trump campaign talking points without referencing the actual indictments, jury instructions, trial records, or other evidence.  In other words, Watters fabricated lies about them instead.  And he did so with dramatic and obvious partisan attitude.  Apply question three: credibility.  An opinion host attacking verifiable court documents without engaging their actual content, who chooses to attack strawman or fabricated arguments instead, is producing nothing more than rage-baiting rhetoric for an eager and fact-unaware conservative audience.^[55][56]  Watters’s segment does not even remotely resemble fact-based reporting.

Finally, the November 10, 2020 Laura Ingraham interview with the aforementioned Sidney Powell.  Ingraham gave Powell a platform to claim “demonstrable, statistical and mathematical and computer evidence of hundreds of thousands of votes being injected into the computer systems.”  While Ingraham tried to give the appearance of fact-checking Powell, she clearly supported her claims throughout the program.  For example, Ingraham at one point asked Powell to talk about how the Associated Press found Powell’s claims false.  Ingraham disparaged the AP’s quality as she asked that very question to Powell, diminishing the validity of her own point.  While Ingraham mischaracterized the Associated Press’s reputation, in fact the AP is among the highest quality news sources one can rely upon according to all independent fact checkers… unlike Fox.  More damning to Powell’s case is the fact, as mentioned previously, that after this interview Powell pleaded guilty to lying and committing election fraud herself in her criminal case.^[57][58]

It is further revealing of Ingraham and Fox more broadly when we set this against the Dominion Voting lawsuit record previously discussed.  Just two days before this interview, Ingraham had texted Carlson and Hannity that “Sidney Powell is a bit nuts.  Sorry but she is.”  Carlson told his producer days later, “Sidney Powell is lying.”  Fox host Sean Hannity admitted, “That whole narrative that Sidney was pushing.  I did not believe it for one second.”  Fox’s own internal fact checks concluded that the election fraud allegations made against Dominion Voting, which Powell pushed, were “incorrect” and that there was “not evidence of widespread fraud.”^[59]

Everyone at Fox knew that Powell was lying.  Their own private conversations, confiscated by law enforcement in the Dominion lawsuit, confirm this as an indisputable fact.  Yet they broadcast her false claims anyway.  Beyond Ingraham’s interview with Powell, Fox repeatedly and consistently reinforced the same false claims of election fraud in 2020 based on Trump’s unfounded claim for years.  Powell’s imaginary evidence was demonstrated false not only in Powell’s legal battle but in the nearly 70 fraudulent lawsuits by Trump’s legal team led by Rudy Giulianni.^[60]

The gap between what Ingraham and Fox broadly believed and what they let Powell tell millions of viewers, treating Powell as if she were a reasonable voice, and making no serious effort to challenge her, is the textbook definition of disinformation.  Given this disinformation matches Trump’s and the Republican party’s talking points, Fox News clearly qualifies as a source of propaganda.

As independent fact checking organization Media Bias / Fact Check puts it:

“Overall, we rate Fox News right-biased based on editorial positions that align with the right and Questionable due to the promotion of state propaganda, conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, the use of poor sources, and numerous false claims and failed fact checks.  While straight news reporting from beat reporters is generally fact-based and accurate, it is typically overshadowed by propagandistic opinions, which earns them a Low factual rating.”^[61]

Conclusion

Applying the information literacy framework consistently, Fox News fails on every axis a careful reader would examine.  Fox’s top hosts have been legally classified as commentators, not factual reporters.  Its parent corporation paid nearly $800 million rather than defend its election coverage at trial.  Its own anchors and execs on the record called the conspiracy theories they broadcast and presented as factual “insane,” “crazy,” and “lies.”  This is not partisan characterization: it is the documentary record of Fox’s hosts, employees, and executives, under oath, in their own words.

The Joe Rogan Experience

If Fox News represents legacy right-leaning media, The Joe Rogan Experience represents its successor: the long-form podcast that has become a primary information source for millions of Americans, especially young men.  While Rogan’s political guests span the range from left to right, Rogan’s podcast is among the top sources right-leaning Americans trust most.  Viewers regard his multi-hour conversations with newsmakers as more trustworthy than traditional journalism.^[62]

Apply the information literacy framework, and the picture darkens considerably.

Who is Joe Rogan?  Rogan is a stand-up comedian and a mixed martial arts color commentator.  He has no education or work experience in professional journalism.^[63]  Rogan acknowledged the need for more fact-checking on his show in 2022 after it became news that he helped to spread COVID-19 misinformation.^[64]  Yet it would appear Rogan does not understand how to effectively do so: The Joe Rogan Experience continues to lack any editorial supervision or professional fact-checking infrastructure.  Rogan’s questionable guest selections as well can make it extremely difficult to live fact-check.^[65]

These factors – no professional journalism training or experience, no fact-checking infrastructure, and some notoriously extreme and problematic guests – are a recipe for spreading misinformation.  Let’s examine why.

A Tale of Two Interviews

A useful experiment in critical thinking is to compare how Joe Rogan handles guests across the political spectrum.  In June 2025, Rogan hosted Senator Bernie Sanders.  Rogan generally treated Senator Sanders in a friendly manner, and let him speak for the greater majority of the time.  Rogan broadly agreed with his guest until around 30 minutes in.  When Sanders stated that the last decade had been the warmest on climate record, Rogan immediately pushed back.  He cited a Washington Post piece which, he claimed, showed that the planet, rather than warming, is in a “cooling period.”  The Post article was even displayed onscreen for a moment, suggesting credibility in Rogan’s claim.  Rogan went on, claiming that there is complicated disagreement among scientists on the matter.  He also associated climate science with moneyed interests that are trying to control us.  Sanders, unprepared for this, simply stated he’d not read the article and carried on with his own point.^[66]

Rogan’s entire interjection was in fact a cluster of misunderstandings and falsehoods.  To begin with, there is no meaningful disagreement among climate scientists, contrary to Rogan’s claim.  For several decades now, there has been nearly universal consensus (over 99%) in the global scientific community that climate warming is real and that human activities are a major cause.^{[67][68][69][70][71]}

As for the corrupting interests of the powerful and wealthy in climate science, there is no evidence of this.  Prior to discussing climate change, Sanders and Rogan discussed how the wealthy and powerful undemocratically influence political elections, and how corporate greed permeates the healthcare industry.  There is truth to this in both cases (e.g. campaign finance corruption since the Citizens United v. FEC case of 2010).^[72]  But extending this to the climate science community appears to exemplify bad logic in the form of the Anecdotal Fallacy, where without evidence one assumes a broad pattern exists based on one or a few examples.^[73]  This further misunderstands how science and scientists operate at the federal level in particular.  This is a topic for another article in its own right, and is beyond the scope of this article.  But in essence, the federal science workforce consists of bright and highly-educated scientists who choose careers that offer less pay and no accolades than they could in private sector jobs because they are motivated to serve their country.^[74][75][76]

As for the Post article, it certainly did not say what Rogan said it did.  Rogan either did not read the article or did not understand what he was reading.  The article reported on a recent scientific study that mapped out a very rigorous historical timeline of the global mean surface temperature (GMST) on Earth over the past 485 million years.  Rogan neglects to mention that the study clearly links carbon dioxide patterns to the rise and fall of the GMST over this time span.  Rather than reject it as Rogan claims, the study affirms the well-grounded premise that human activities are responsible for raising carbon dioxide and other greenhouse gas emissions into the Earth’s atmosphere, causing the GMST to rise 2.5°F over the past century.  For comparison, the study documents how the last mass extinction event of the dinosaurs occurred some 250 million years ago, when the GMST rose about 18°F over a 50,000-year period.  At the current rate of rising GMST, we will hit the 18°F increase in a mere 400 years – a far more rapid temperature rise than when the dinosaurs died out.  Long before we even get to that time, the current 2.5°F rise in global temperatures alone has been linked to melting ice caps, altered global wind and weather patterns, an increased incidence of emergency weather events, increased flooding of coastal regions as sea levels rise, increased incidence of drought, and reduced agricultural yields globally.  By the time surviving young adults today reach old age, the GMST will have risen another 2.5°F at the current rate, thus exacerbating all of these problems further.  Dismissing all of this with the old “temperatures have always fluctuated” canard as Rogan did in this episode reflects his clear failure to comprehend climate science.^[77][78]

If Rogan had proper training as a journalist, if his podcast had well-informed professional fact-checkers on staff, and if Rogan truly had the intent to tell the truth, such a blunder would likely not have happened.

And so, Rogan notably and actively challenged his left-leaning guest’s factual assertions in real time.  Now let’s contrast this with his October 2024 interview with Donald Trump.  This interview has been viewed more than 50 million times on YouTube alone, whereas the Sanders episode was viewed only 5 million times.  On the one hand and to his credit, Rogan made a modest but notable effort to challenge Trump’s assertion that the 2020 presidential election was “stolen” from him.  Trump struggled to coherently argue his case when Rogan asked.  He made several false statements after Rogan asked follow-up questions about why Trump thinks the election was rigged and if he could give examples.  Trump presented no evidence, promising only to “bring in papers that you would not believe” another time.^[79]

Unbelievable indeed.  As we saw in the Dominion Voting vs Fox News lawsuit, Trump’s legal team lost all but one of nearly 70 lawsuits challenging the 2020 election results of key states and districts.  The one case that Trump’s legal team did win concerned a tiny Pennsylvania district where a very small number of improperly counted votes were revealed.  After correction however, the election results were not changed: Biden still won by a very comfortable margin.^[80][81][82]

While Rogan questioned Trump, his effort was half-hearted.  None of the facts that dispel Trump’s election lies were mentioned by Rogan.  He did not present any facts whatsoever to counter the president’s demonstrably false claim.  Rather, Rogan let Trump talk about and skirt around the issue.

The rest of the episode saw Rogan take an aligned stance with the president.  Rogan was friendly with Sanders too, as is his general pattern with guests.  But with Trump, he went beyond friendliness, setting the stage of the interview from the very start by affirming Trump’s false rhetoric on being the victim of unjustified attacks by “the establishment.”  Pointing at how friendly figures like Whoopie Goldberg and Oprah Winfrey once were to Trump before his rise in the 2016 presidential campaign, Rogan imagined that they were somehow part of the wealthy and powerful interests with ulterior motives for hating Trump who then tried to unjustifiably put him down.

Zero evidence was cited by either Rogan or Trump for this imaginary scenario.  Rogan did not mention that celebrities and media figures disavowed Trump for justifiable reasons; there was no need for imagined powerful and wealthy overlords to tell them to step away.  Trump’s own disturbing behavior and commentary as far back as 2015-2016 justified it: his belligerence, his bigotry, the plethora of demonstrable falsehoods and lies he spoke and tweeted, not to mention the then-revealed evidence of his deplorable behavior and justification for committing sexual abuse against women because he’s famous.  Rogan therefore implicitly dismisses these as plausible reasons for “turning” against Trump.^{[83][84][85][86][87][88]}

CNN’s running fact-check identified 32 false claims Trump made during this interview.  Among them are the recycled lie that he won the 2020 election, fabricated migrant murder statistics, and a long-debunked story about schools performing gender-affirming surgeries.^[89]  Several high-quality news sources further documented these and additional falsehoods.^[90][91]  Except for the 2020 election lie, Rogan let all of them pass without challenge.  The same host who (in)corrected a senator on climate science volunteered no equivalent corrections when the then-future president made dozens of demonstrably false statements about elections, immigration, and education policy.

A reader applying critical thinking skills would notice a highly problematic pattern evincing why having standard quality assurance methods in place is necessary to attain reliability as an information source.  One might superficially think that Rogan’s friendly attitude towards all guests of many political positions is a good thing.  But cozying up to guests makes for poor journalism.  Journalists know to ask the tough questions, and how to ask them effectively.  Rogan is either unwilling or unable to do so; again, he has no journalism education or experience.  His willingness or ability to fact-check his guests at all is also sparse and inconsistent: many falsehoods go unchecked, while some true statements are unjustifiably challenged.  His willingness to fact-check his guests seems to correlate with the guest’s politics as well.  That selectivity is itself a clear form of bias, regardless of how genuinely neutral Rogan considers himself.

As well, whether supporting or challenging his guests’ statements, Rogan himself makes numerous false statements that go unchecked and unretracted.  In his interview with Trump and elsewhere, Rogan falsely claimed that the January 6^th, 2021 insurrection was a “false flag” operation orchestrated by Democrats to bring Trump down.  There is zero evidence to support this.  On the contrary, mountains of evidence do exist to support the fact that Trump both incited and orchestrated the attempted violent overthrow of the U.S. government in order to unconstitutionally remain president, against the will of the people, and in a manner consistent with dictatorial regimes.^[92][93][94]

Fact-Checking Rogan Further

Independent fact-checking organization Ad Fontes Media rated the Rogan-Trump interview specifically.  In line with their analysis protocol, a team of three trained media analysts with left, center, and right-leaning politics placed the interview’s bias score in the “hyper-partisan right” category, and scored its reliability towards the bottom of the chart, on the cusp of the “opinion” and “misleading information” zones.  Scores of this or worse value are described by Ad Fontes as “generally problematic.”^[95]  The overall Joe Rogan Experience podcast has been broadly rated as not credible and containing considerable factual inaccuracies.  Independent fact-checking organization Media Bias / Fact Check classifies it as a “Questionable Source” due to Rogan’s recurring promotion of pseudoscience and false or misleading claims, particularly regarding COVID-19 vaccines.^[96]  PolitiFact, another independent fact-checker, has rated several specific Rogan claims as “False” or “Mostly False,” including his suggestions that the government was “monitoring SMS texts” for vaccine misinformation and that mRNA vaccines are “gene therapy.”^[97]  Ad Fontes founder Vanessa Otero emphasized in 2022 that Rogan’s overall near-center bias score reflects an averaging across different episodes with guests ranging from hyper-partisan right to hyper-partisan left and varying degrees in between.  Centered does not necessarily mean reliable: this is not the kind of consistent factual centrism a reader would associate with high quality information sources like the Associated Press or Reuters.^[98]  And Rogan’s overall bias score has since veered more definitively to having right-leaning bias.^[99]

Conclusion

Applying the information literacy framework to The Joe Rogan Experience reveals a severe credibility problem.  The host has no journalism credentials.  His show has no editorial layer or fact-checking process.  Independent media raters describe it as low credibility for good reason.  And its most-watched political episodes are hyper-partisan right biased, with guests spewing out extreme falsehoods with little-to-no fact-checking.  A variety of specific factual claims have been documented as false by several neutral fact-checkers, and the most viewed political interview in podcast history featured dozens of falsehoods that the host did not even challenge.

None of this means Rogan is incapable of producing thoughtful conversation.  Many episodes are not political at all, and in some political episodes he gets some things right.  But the most believable false narratives contain a grain of truth.

As a news source, The Joe Rogan Experience therefore belongs in the same low tier of credibility as Fox News.  It appears that ignorance and incompetence are the reasons for Rogan’s purveyance of falsehoods, not malicious intent as in the case of Fox News.  The Joe Rogan Experience is nonetheless, at best, qualified as a source of misinformation.  It falls far short of the high tier of fact-based journalism that any serious civic education would recommend as a primary information source.

As we will now see, the deficiencies we see in Rogan’s podcast are, unfortunately, not uncommon to the broader medium of podcasts and social media.

Social Media, Podcasts, and the News Influencer Problem

In addition to podcasts, Americans are increasingly turning to news influencers for their news.  News influencers are individuals who regularly stream a podcast or post on social media about current events and civic issues.  About 21% of U.S. adults, including 37% of those under 30, now regularly get their news from influencers.^[100]  Among those who do, they say they trust influencers as independent or more authentic news sources who can explain current events and politics better for them.^[101]

On The Brian Lehrer Show, Vox journalist Rebecca Jennings discussed the “bro” media diet: how a small ecosystem of predominantly male podcasters like Joe Rogan have become the dominant political news source for Gen Z men in particular.  Though individuals span the political spectrum, on average they lean right.  Long-form conversation is not inherently bad, Jennings argues.  The problem here starts with the fact that audiences who consume three-hour interviews, with no editorial layer, often perceive the format to be deeply informative.  Length feels like depth.  Familiarity feels like trust.^[102]

Yet neither length nor familiarity lend themselves to real depth or trustworthiness.  Pew Research’s 2024 study of 500 popular news influencers found that, like Joe Rogan, about 77% of them never worked for a news organization.^[103]  The structural problem here is straightforward.  Professional journalism is governed by institutional safeguards: the Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics, editorial review, fact-checking desks, and corrections policies.^[104]  A greater majority of influencers operate without any of these safeguards that would ensure more reliable information.^[105]  News influencers also enjoy considerably reduced legal exposure to defamation suits.  By contrast, legal exposure adds a further check on the credibility of traditional news organizations.^[106]

Additionally, many influencers have no formal education in journalism.^[107]  Colleges that offer degrees in journalism typically instruct students in information and media literacy skills as part of their curriculum.  As we have seen, this helps develop the critical thinking and analytical skills necessary for navigating media effectively, understanding media influence, and creating responsible, accurate content.  Lacking in these skills invariably leads to a weakened capacity to discern between accurate information and falsehoods.^{[108][109][110]}

Therefore, a likable or relatable person who can confidently articulate volumes of information can sound very convincing.  But doing so leaves us prone to deception.  Liars do not always avert their eyes or look anxious when talking to you.  Skillful liars camouflage their dishonesty by speaking with complete confidence and relatability, psychologically tricking you into trusting them.  If we are not well educated in the subject matter or aren’t well trained in information literacy, we’re even worse at detecting deception.  Human beings are furthermore prone to cognitive bias.  We find it easier to believe what we hear on first hearing about a thing.  Then, we stubbornly hold to our subjective beliefs, even after facts are clearly presented which challenge our original assumptions.  The antidote is to be vigilantly self-aware of our own biases and self-deception, keeping them in check.  And no matter how confident or relatable a speaker may seem, there is no substitute for fact-based analysis and verification.^{[111][112][113][114]}

The audiences of news influencers are also far more likely to encounter opinions they already agree with than those they don’t.  The influencer format therefore lacks the basic civic function of exposing audiences to challenges to their existing beliefs.  On the contrary, it serves to reinforce beliefs and viewpoints, however wrong they may be.^[115]

Speaking of reinforcing beliefs and views, lets now dive more into social media and its algorithms.

Social Media Algorithms

Social media algorithms play a crucial role in this unfortunate development.  The algorithms are engineered to amplify the most emotionally provocative content, not the most accurate.  Most social media platforms like X and Facebook intentionally employ such algorithms to addict users and solicit information they can generate revenue from.  Users who “like” posts containing misleading or false information will never see valid, accurate content that challenges their false beliefs.  Providing accurate information is not their concern.  Indeed, our feeds can include upsetting or harmful material: violent threats, antisemitism and other forms of bigotry, content encouraging self-harm and eating disorders, illicit drug sales, and other forms of harm.^{[116][117][118]}

Information literacy skills are especially urgent for younger audiences to learn because they rely more on social media for their information than adults do.  Unsurprisingly, their beliefs in conspiracy theories and other falsehoods now exceeds that of adults.^[119]

While legitimate news sources have X and Facebook accounts and post there regularly, this does not make social media sites legitimate news sources.  In spite of their presence, there’s a preponderance of misleading and deceptive information driven by algorithms from far more numerous sources.  Some of this even stems from adversarial foreign governments like Russia who target Americans to increase belief in their propaganda.^[120][121]

Conclusion

None of this proves that individual influencers like Joe Rogan are dishonest.  But it does mean the baseline reliability of an unaffiliated content creator is, on average, substantially lower than that of a working journalist embedded in an institution that can be sued for getting things wrong.  Exceptions do exist within the news influencer industry.  But the vast majority, in lacking the education and professional safeguards required for reliable information, at best they purvey volumes of misinformation to their audiences, and disinformation and propaganda at worst.

More Right-Leaning Sources

Several more news outlets are disproportionately trusted by right-leaning Americans.  Let us now apply the same three questions — who is the author, where does the information come from, is it credible — and the same critical analysis to four more sources.  While a nuanced critique reveals they are not bad in the same way or to the same degree, each has serious reliability problems.

Newsmax: Fox News 2.0

As Media Bias / Fact Check notes, Newsmax’s promotion of conspiracy theories, pseudoscience, and other forms of fake news clearly marks them as a “Questionable” right-wing source of falsehoods.^[122]  Newsmax’s 2020 election coverage is a clear-cut example of this.  Like Fox News, Newsmax has also been forced to pay for its deceptive 2020 election coverage in court.  Newsmax broadcast the same false claims that voting-technology companies had switched votes from Trump to Biden.  The voting machine companies sued Newsmax too, and Newsmax also settled both times.  It paid Smartmatic $40 million to settle claims it had defamed the company over false 2020 election reporting, a figure disclosed in a regulatory filing.  In August 2025, it agreed to pay Dominion Voting Systems $67 million, structured across three installments going into 2027.^{[123][124][125][126]}

Apply the credibility test.  A news outlet that pays nine figures in combined settlements rather than defend its reporting at trial over the same conspiracy theory that cost Fox News $787.5 million is telling you, through its own legal conduct, how confident it is in the truth of what it broadcasts.  Newsmax’s public statement that it stood by its coverage as professional journalism sits awkwardly beside its willingness to write those checks.  The logic is the same one a reader should apply to any source: actions, especially expensive legal ones, are stronger evidence than press releases.

The Tucker Carlson Network: An Even Looser Standard

The case for Tucker Carlson’s unreliability has already been half-made in our Fox News discussion earlier.  Recall that Fox’s own attorneys successfully argued in the McDougal lawsuit that no “reasonable viewer” would take Carlson’s factual assertions literally, and that the Dominion filings revealed Carlson privately calling the election fraud claims he platformed “insane” and “lies.”^[127]

After Fox dismissed him in 2023, Carlson launched his own subscription venture, the Tucker Carlson Network, distributing long-form interviews on X and his own platform.  His podcast has no network editorial layer or fact-checking desk.  The structural safeguards, already weak at Fox, were removed entirely with Carlson’s transition into a news influencer.  Carlson’s credibility is rated very low, and his network is a source for extreme right-wing disinformation and propaganda.^[128][129]

A few interviews illustrate the results we can expect when the guardrails are removed.  In February 2024, Carlson traveled to Moscow to interview the brutal Russian dictator Vladimir Putin.  Putin opened with a lengthy revisionist history claiming, among other things, that Poland had effectively forced Hitler to invade in 1939.  Carlson largely did not challenge these claims.  Poland’s Ministry of Foreign Affairs found the falsehoods serious enough to publish a formal list of ten of Putin’s lies that Carlson left unchallenged, and the National World War II Museum notes there is no evidence for Putin’s claim that Hitler had “no choice” but to invade Poland.  Nazi Germany had, in fact, staged false-flag operations to justify the invasion.^[130][131]

Then in September 2024, Carlson hosted Darryl Cooper, whom he introduced as the “most important popular historian” in America.  Cooper proceeded to suggest that the Holocaust’s millions of deaths were an accidental consequence of poor Nazi planning and that Winston Churchill was the war’s “chief villain.”  The Biden White House condemned the interview as a “disgusting and sadistic insult,” and the Anti-Defamation League noted that the camps were part of Hitler’s deliberate extermination plan, not an administrative accident.^[132]

On a similar note, Carlson also interviewed the holocaust denier and white nationalist commentator Nick Fuentes in 2025.  During the interview, Fuentes admired the Soviet dictator Joseph Stalin, and made antisemitic statements such as his claim that “organized Jewry” is running the United States.^[133][134]

The information-literacy failure here is not merely bias.  It is the complete abandonment of verification as a function.  A host who presents a Holocaust revisionist as a leading historian and lets a brutal autocrat’s documented falsehoods stand unchallenged is not conducting journalism.  He is providing a megaphone to the most extreme and dangerous liars.

Breitbart: A Self-Described Platform for the “Alt-Right”

Media Bias / Fact Check also classifies Breitbart as a “Questionable” source, citing extreme right-wing bias, the publication of conspiracy theories and propaganda, and numerous false claims.^[135]  Asking who runs Breitbart is especially revealing here.  Steve Bannon was the executive chairman of Breitbart from 2012 to 2018.  He was Donald Trump’s campaign chief and White House chief strategist in the first Trump administration.^[136]  In February 2025, Bannon pleaded guilty to defrauding donors to a private effort to fund the building of a wall on the U.S. southern border.^[137]  He was also a friend to convicted sex trafficker Jeffrey Epstein and worked for a time to try and help Epstein redeem his public image.^[138]  Bannon described Breitbart as “the platform for the alt-right” during the 2016 Republican convention.  The alt-right is a movement widely associated with white nationalism, a nationalist and isolationist political ideology for white supremacists who want racial segregation brought back to the United States.^[139]

For a reader applying source evaluation, a publication whose own leadership branded it the platform for a movement linked to racism, and which independent fact-checkers flag for repeatedly making false claims, fails the credibility test on both the authorship and reputation questions simultaneously.  Its pattern of selecting and framing stories to stoke racial and cultural grievance, rather than to inform, is the textbook profile of disinformation.

The Daily Wire: A Harder Case to Crack

The Daily Wire, co-founded by Ben Shapiro, deserves a more careful treatment.  Applying the information literacy framework produces a mixed verdict here.  Ad Fontes Media rates its bias as “Strong Right” and categorizes its reliability as “Mixed Reliability / Opinion OR Other Issues.”^[140]  Media Bias / Fact Check rates it “Right” with “Mixed” factual reporting, a step up from the previous sources reviewed.  Notably, MBFC removed it from the “Questionable” list after determining that a number of its previously failed fact-checks had been corrected or edited for accuracy.  The outlet does employ fact-checking, publishes corrections, and gets a substantial amount factually right.  By the standards of the right-leaning sources reviewed in this article, which are notably very poor, it is the most procedurally responsible of the group.^[141]

However, this does not make it a fact-based news source in the sense our primer would recommend.  The same raters note it still publishes misleading content and earns its “Mixed” rating through promotion of propaganda and uncorrected fact-checks, particularly on climate science, where reviewers at Climate Feedback have judged specific Daily Wire stories to have very low scientific credibility.  Its core technique of deception is to cherry pick facts to construct a misleading or false narrative.  In other words, it selects facts that support its alternative conclusions and omits facts that challenge them.  So rather than fabricating falsehoods outright, it curates them, emphasizing facts that support a conservative conclusion while omitting context that complicates it.  That is precisely the worst of the second tier described in our media literacy primer: heavily slanted commentary that is not always factually false but is misleadingly built to persuade and lead the audience to false conclusions, not to accurately inform them.^[142][143]

As the old adage goes, the most convincing lies contain an element of truth.  The lesson for information literacy is subtle, but important.  Not every right-leaning outlet is Breitbart, and treating them all as identical, blatant liars is itself a failure of critical thinking.  The Daily Wire’s problem is not constant fabrication: it is systematic one-sidedness, dressed up to appear as legitimate reporting.  A careful reader can extract factual claims from it, but should treat it as a biased opinion source to be diligently cross-checked.  Never should it be treated as a primary or neutral record of events.

Conclusion

Run through the framework, these four sources sort into distinct failure modes.  Newsmax knowingly broadcast election falsehoods and paid more than $100 million across two settlements rather than defend them.  The Tucker Carlson Network has dispensed with verification entirely, platforming autocrats and antisemitic historical revisionists without challenge.  Breitbart operates, by its own former leadership’s description, as an ideological platform for white nationalism, and has been flagged by fact-checkers for propaganda and false claims.  The Daily Wire is the most careful or clever of the four, functioning as a persuasion engine built on selective framing, not neutral reporting.

The common thread is what our primer warned about: strong political bias correlating with degraded reliability, ranging from outright disinformation at one end to heavily slanted opinion at the other.  None of the most popular six information sources among right-wing audiences belongs in the top tier of fact-based reporting that a well-informed citizen should rely on as a primary record of events.  This is a highly disturbing fact which every American should be made aware and cautious of.

Recognizing the differences among these sources is exactly the kind of discernment that information literacy is also meant to build.  We saw how a legal settlement is stronger evidence than a slogan.  And that while an unchallenged and fabricated lie may be worse than a one-sided framing, the latter can be more insidiously difficult to detect.

Why Trust the Fact Checkers?

A reasonable reader might be asking: if we’re using ratings from Ad Fontes Media, Media Bias / Fact Check, and similar organizations to evaluate other sources, what makes the evaluators themselves reliable?  It’s a fair question, and the answer is rooted in the same information literacy principles we’ve been applying throughout this article: transparent methodology, expert review, internal checks against bias, and external accountability.

Consider the methodological backbone.  Ad Fontes Media publishes a detailed content-analysis methodology paper that describes every step of its process.  Each article or episode is rated by a panel of at least three trained analysts working synchronously.  Each panel is deliberately balanced on the political spectrum: one self-identified left-leaning analyst, one center, and one right-leaning.  Content is scored on defined metrics including veracity, expression, headline accuracy, and political position, and analysts must justify discrepant scores.  When significant disagreement remains, the content is re-rated by a second balanced panel.  The analysis team includes academics, journalists, librarians, lawyers, and veterans, with most holding advanced degrees.  Every analyst furthermore completes roughly 30 hours of initial training, followed by 40 hours of ongoing training annually.^[144]

Media Bias / Fact Check operates differently but with comparable transparency.  Its 2025 methodology evaluates outlets on four weighted criteria: failed fact-checks (40 percent), sourcing quality (25 percent), transparency of ownership and funding (25 percent), and one-sidedness or omission (10 percent).  Only failed fact checks from credible third-party reviewers within the past five years count against a source, and corrected errors are not held against an outlet: a self-correction principle these raters apply to themselves as well.^[145]

Additional fact-check sites, like NewsGuard and All Sides, have similarly rigorous and transparent policies.^[146][147]

The deeper guarantee comes from external accreditation.  The International Fact-Checking Network at the Poynter Institute maintains a Code of Principles with 31 specific criteria covering nonpartisanship, transparency of sources, transparency of funding and methodology, and a published corrections policy.  Signatories are vetted by independent external assessors, and major platforms including Google and TikTok have made IFCN signatory status a prerequisite for their fact-checking programs.^[148]  Independent academic studies have furthermore found high agreement between professional fact-checking organizations like Media Bias / Fact Check, Ad Fontes Media, NewsGuard, journalist-coded datasets, and others.  While some older research points to more divergence in opinion, it focuses more on specific claims evaluation than news source credibility and reliability more broadly.  Ultimately, even the more skeptical research agrees that fact checkers at least moderately agree through their independent analyses.  Professional, independent fact-checking systems therefore converge rather than diverge in their conclusions when measured against one another, demonstrating their considerable accuracy.^{[149][150][151]}

None of this makes any single rater infallible.  The honest case for trusting them is structural: they show their work, balance their personnel, accept and admit correction, and can be cross-checked against one another.

That is precisely the standard the most trusted right-leaning outlets discussed in this article all fail to meet.

But Isn’t the Liberal Media Just as Bad?

A predictable and common response to any critique of right-leaning media outlets is the claim that the liberal media is just as biased.  The supposition is we can’t trust anyone to tell us the truth.

Asking about left-leaning media bias is a fair question.  Yet lumping all news media that’s not right-leaning into the misnomer “the liberal media” entirely misconstrues the widely nuanced reality of the media landscape.  More broadly, it collapses two very different categories of news source into one.  That very collapse is itself a misconception worth examining.

Left-Leaning Opinion and Analysis Outlets

On the one hand, sources like MS NOW (formerly MSNBC, rebranded in November 2025) and to a milder degree CNN do carry a real left-of-center bias primarily in their primetime programming.  MS NOW’s own slogan is “My Source for News, Opinion, and the World,” which at least honestly names opinion as part of the product (unlike Fox News).  Several MS NOW hosts like Rachel Maddow and Lawrence O’Donnell are commentators, not straight-news anchors, and treating their programming as neutral reporting is a categorical error in the same way treating Sean Hannity as neutral reporting is.  Honest critics of right-leaning media should be willing to say the same about MS NOW: it sits in the secondary “analysis and opinion” tier of the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart, not the primary tier of pure fact-based reporting.  Viewers should consume it as such.^[152]

That said, it is worth pointing out that Fox commentators Hannity, Ingraham, Watters, and more fare worse in the Media Bias Chart, falling into the “selective or incomplete / unfair persuasion” category, a full step below the “analysis and opinion” section of Maddow and O’Donnell.  While all are opinionated news commentators, at least Maddow and O’Donnell rely more on the facts when arguing their conclusions.^[153]

CNN is more often misidentified than MS NOW.  Independent raters generally place CNN’s straight-news reporting only slightly left of center, with its primetime opinion shows leaning somewhat further.  Its bias is notable.  Nonetheless, CNN is significantly closer to the middle than either MS NOW on the left or Fox News commentary on the right.  Treating CNN as the “liberal” equivalent of Breitbart or Newsmax fails the basic information literacy test of distinguishing degrees of bias and degrees of factual reliability.  The bias chart is two-dimensional for a reason.^[154]

Fact-Based News Reporting

The Associated Press, Reuters, National Public Radio, PBS News Hour, ABC News, NBC News, CBS News, and more news sources occupy a fundamentally different category.  Ad Fontes Media consistently places these major wire services at the top of the reliability axis in the “fact-based reporting” category, and very near the center of the bias axis, especially the AP and Reuters.  They employ thousands of professional reporters worldwide, stringently follow detailed editorial standards, transparently publish corrections, and have legal exposure to lawsuits that incentivize accuracy.  NPR and PBS, while sometimes rated as leaning slightly left in tone or story selection, still sit firmly in the top “fact-based reporting” tier on reliability.^[155]  These are not “liberal media” in any meaningful sense: they are mainstream professional journalism.  Calling them liberal propaganda outlets is a rhetorical move, a strawman or made-up argument, and not an evidence-based assessment.

The key to this whole framing is to grasp the nuanced spectrum of news reporting.  Bias exists across the political spectrum, but bias and inaccuracy are not the same thing.  Nor are they found to the same degree on both sides.  A slightly left-leaning fact-based outlet is still vastly more reliable than a hyperpartisan one of either side.  And errors at outlets like the AP, NPR, or even the opinion-tiered MS NOW in fact are typically followed by published corrections.  This is the institutional self-correction mechanism that distinguishes professional journalism from agenda-driven content.  A mistake right-wing commentary frequently makes is treating every non-conservative source as a single undifferentiated category called “the liberal media.”  That flattening is itself a failure to critically think.  And applying the framework honestly means rejecting it, whichever direction the flattening runs.

Concluding Thoughts

This article has now taught you the basics of how to discern the quality of news sources for yourself.  If you did not know what to trust before, you are now equipped with the basics of information and media literacy skills and can begin to unravel which sources are more trustworthy, and therefore worth relying on.

We have also demonstrated that the six most trusted right-leaning news sources in America are very untrustworthy.  The most trusted left-leaning news sources are considerably more reliable by contrast.  Bias and misinformation persist on both sides, but the quality of news sources trusted most by left-leaning news consumers is considerably more reliable than those trusted by right-leaners.  This realization supports the growing body of evidence which suggests that “in the U.S., Republicans and conservatives may be more prone to hold misperceptions than Democrats and liberals.”^[156]

Therefore, we can conclude that right-leaning news consumers are a considerably more falsely-informed group.  Considering the plethora of misinformation, disinformation, and propaganda they consume, it is disturbing yet not surprising to find that polls demonstrate the vast majority of Republicans persist in believing that Donald Trump’s criminal convictions were politically motivated, and that he bore little to no responsibility for the January 6^th, 2021 insurrection at the U.S. Capitol.^[157][158]  As factually demonstrated in a previous article,^[159] the evidence of Trump’s criminality and of his responsibility in the violent insurrection at the Capitol is overwhelming.  A growing mountain of facts clearly demonstrates him to be an extremely corrupt and justly convicted criminal with strong autocratic tendencies.^[160][161]  All Americans who’ve relied on high quality news sources (e.g. the Associated Press, Reuters, NPR, PBS, ABC News, etc.) have well learned this to be factually true.  All Americans who’ve relied on the misinforming, disinforming, and propagandizing sources (e.g. Fox News, a majority of news influencers like Joe Rogan, Newsmax, Tucker Carlson, Breitbart, etc.) instead have come to believe in an alternative fantasy world, where up is down and left is right.

“The Party told you to reject the evidence of your eyes and ears.  It was their final, most essential command.”

– George Orwell, 1984

As Orwell’s Party did in fiction,^[162] we too have been asked to reject the evidence of our eyes and ears. Evidence we can plainly see, if we understand how to look.  For sources like Fox News, the motivation to propagandize us appears financial: they make more money when they regurgitate the lies their viewers want them to say.  For other sources like Rogan’s podcast, the misinformation appears to be due to ignorance and incompetence.  Yet for others like Breitbart, the motive is philosophical: gaining support for their white nationalist agenda is their goal, and deceit is their means of convincing others to support that agenda.  Regardless of their motivations, all major right-leaning news sources have deceived 51% of the voting public to unwittingly vote for a corrupt criminal convict with dictatorial ambitions in the presidential election of November 2024.

Hypothetically, we can hope that anyone of any political persuasion would be accepting and amenable to correcting their errors on being presented with facts that demonstrate the failures of their trusted media sources.  If the evidence pointed to left-leaning news consumers as the group in error, then the response should rightly be the same: abandon the sources of false information and replace them with reputable sources of fact-based reporting.  But the evidence, as we have clearly demonstrated in this article, shows this burden has fallen squarely on the shoulders of right-leaning voters at this time.  This is not a partisan characterization: it’s the objective reality of the present situation.

If you are a right-leaning reader, you should be commended for making it this far.  The question remains whether you have what it takes to review the evidence fairly and recognize the grave error right-leaning Americans have made in trusting the wrong people to inform them.  You may want to ask additional questions of yourself as well.  What information have you learned from the right-leaning sources examined in this article over the years?  What have you learned about Donald Trump?  About his election fraud claims?  About January 6^th, 2021?  About illegal immigration?  And about a host of other political topics.  Do you think it’s time to rethink what you think you have known about these topics?  After all, factual reality is not concerned with what we wish it to be.  It is what it is, objectively, without regard to our wishes.  We do best when we genuinely discern the truth with detachment and equanimity; when we then accept the truth for what it is, and thereby deal with it effectively.

In earlier installments of this series, we demonstrated that Donald Trump is a corrupt criminal convict with dictatorial ambitions.  We concluded that he could not have done it alone: he had a lot of help.  In this article, we explored how he was greatly helped by right-leaning media’s falsehoods and propaganda.  In the next and final article in this series, we’ll explore how the Republican Party itself has also greatly aided Trump.  Tune in next time to explore the facts which demonstrate the Party’s coordinated efforts to support Trump’s ascendance at grave cost to the country’s constitutional order.

Sources

1. George Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four, Harcourt Inc, 1949.

2. Brooke Donald, “Stanford researchers find students have trouble judging the credibility of information online,” Graduate School of Education: Research Stories, Stanford University, Nov. 22, 2016, https://ed.stanford.edu/news/stanford-researchers-find-students-have-trouble-judging-credibility-information-online.

3. R. Kelly Garrett, Robert M. Bond, and Eric C. Nisbet, “Self-Reported Exposure and Beliefs About Misinformation Across a U.S. Presidential Election Cycle: Expressive Responding and Motivated Reasoning,” Political Communication 43 (1): 1-17, 2026, republished by Taylor & Francis Online, DOI: 10.1080/10584609.2025.2532584.

4. Matthew H. Graham, “Measuring Misperceptions?,” American Political Science Review 117 (1), 80-102, Feb. 2023, DOI: 10.1017/S0003055422000387.

5. Kelly Fincham, “Why people believe misinformation even when they’re told the facts,” edited by Stephanie Baum, reviewed by Andrew Zinin, Phys.org, Jan. 14, 2026, https://phys.org/news/2026-01-people-misinformation-theyre-told-facts.html.

6. Alexander Hamilton, “Federalist No. 68: The Mode of Electing the President,” New York Packet, Mar. 14, 1788, republished in “Federalist Papers: Primary Documents in American History” by Library of Congress, https://guides.loc.gov/federalist-papers/text-61-70#s-lg-box-21730676.

7. Elisa Shearer, Kirsten Eddy, Michael Lipka, and Katerina Eva Matsa, “The Political Gap in Americans’ News Sources,” Pew Research Center, June 10, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2025/06/10/the-political-gap-in-americans-news-sources.

Knowing is Half the Battle

8. Luxuan Wang and Joanne Haner, “Many Americans say they often come across inaccurate news – and have a hard time knowing what’s true,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 29, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/29/many-americans-say-they-often-come-across-inaccurate-news-and-have-a-hard-time-knowing-whats-true.

9. Kirsten Eddy, “Majority of Americans express low confidence in journalists to act in public’s best interests,” Pew Research Center, Feb. 11, 2026, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2026/02/11/majority-of-americans-express-low-confidence-in-journalists-to-act-in-publics-best-interests.

10. Kirsten Eddy and Elisa Shearer, “How Americans’ trust in information from news organizations and social media sites has changed over time,” Pew Research Center, Oct. 29, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2025/10/29/how-americans-trust-in-information-from-news-organizations-and-social-media-sites-has-changed-over-time.

11. Luxuan Wang and Naomi Forman-Katz, “News Influencers Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 4, 2025, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/fact-sheet/news-influencers-fact-sheet.

12. “MediaWise,” Poynter Institute, https://www.poynter.org/mediawise.

13. Zara Abrams, “How to teach students critical thinking skills to combat misinformation online,” American Psychological Association, Sept. 21, 2024, https://www.apa.org/monitor/2024/09/media-literacy-misinformation.

14. “Our Research,” The News Literacy Project, https://newslit.org/our-research/?news_and_research_content_type=research&sortBy=date-DESC&actualPage=1&postsPerPage=6.

15. “Media Literacy + Civics,” Poynter Institute, https://www.poynter.org/mediawise/programs/media-literacy-civics.

16. Kevin Arms, “Information Literacy,” TED Conferences, Sept. 2017, https://www.ted.com/talks/kevin_arms_information_literacy.

17. “Our Research,” NLP.

18. Columbia Journalism Review, https://www.cjr.org.

19. LIS Education Network, https://www.lisedunetwork.com/information-literacy.

20. FactCheck.org, https://www.factcheck.org.

21. Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com.

22. Ad Fontes Media, https://adfontesmedia.com.

23. “Lateral Reading: The New Way to Assess Online Information that Your Teachers Never Taught You,” University of Maryland, https://education.umd.edu/news/10-28-24-lateral-reading-new-way-assess-online-information-your-teachers-never-taught-you.

24. “MediaWise.” Poynter Institute.

25. Ad Fontes Media.

Fox News

26. Ximena Bustillo and Andrea Bernstein, “Former President Trump is found guilty in historic New York criminal case,” National Public Radio, May 30, 2024, https://www.npr.org/2024/05/30/nx-s1-4977352/trump-trial-verdict.

27. “McDougal v. Fox News Network, LLC, No. 1:2019cv11161 – Document 39 (S.D.N.Y. 2020),” Justia, https://law.justia.com/cases/federal/district-courts/new-york/nysdce/1:2019cv11161/527808/39.

28. “Fox News Channel Beats ABC And NBC In April Prime Time Ratings,” Forbes, https://www.forbes.com/sites/markjoyella/2026/04/29/fox-news-channel-beats-abc-and-nbc-in-april-prime-time-ratings.

29. David Bauder, Randall Chase, and Geoff Mulvihill, “Fox, Dominion reach $787M settlement over election claims,” The Associated Press, Apr. 18, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-dominion-lawsuit-trial-trump-2020-0ac71f75acfacc52ea80b3e747fb0afe.

30. “US Dominion, Inc., et al. v. Fox News Network, LLC, et al,” Deleware Courts, https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=345820.

31. Christina A. Cassidy, “Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds,” The Associated Press, Dec. 14, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f.

32. Daniel Barnes, “How Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election unfolded in the courtroom,” NBC News, Nov. 2, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trumps-challenges-2020-election-unfolded-courtroom-rcna175490.

33. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator. Here’s Why,” Astute American, July 21, 2024, https://www.astuteamerican.com/2024/07/21/donald-trump-american-demagogue-tyrant.

This article provides a more in-depth examination of Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims and lawsuits, complete with direct quotes from some judges and case references.

34. Kate Brumback, “Sidney Powell pleads guilty over efforts to overturn Trump’s loss in Georgia and agrees to cooperate,” The Associated Press, Oct. 19, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/sidney-powell-plea-deal-georgia-election-indictment-ec7dc601ad78d756643aa2544028e9f5.

35. Jim Mustian, “New York court suspends Rudy Giuliani’s law license,” The Associated Press, June 24, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/rudy-giuliani-new-york-law-license-suspended-c67f4504a22f8642d6096f29e3a5c51e.

36. Miles Parks, “Why Election Lawsuits By The Trump Campaign Have Failed,” National Public Radio, Nov. 12, 2020, https://www.npr.org/2020/11/12/934062308/why-election-lawsuits-by-the-trump-campaign-have-failed.

37. Ryan J. Reilly and Summer Concepcion, “Rudy Giuliani concedes he made ‘false’ statements about Georgia election workers,” NBC News, July 26, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2020-election/rudy-giuliani-concedes-made-false-statements-georgia-election-workers-rcna96395.

38. “US Dominion v. Fox News Network,” Deleware Courts.

39. Kevin Collier and Jane C. Timm, “In private, Fox News stars and staffers blasted election fraud claims as bogus, court filing shows,” NBC News, Feb. 16, 2023, https://www.nbcnews.com/media/private-fox-news-stars-staff-blasted-election-fraud-claims-bogus-court-rcna71123.

40. “US Dominion v. Fox News Network,” Deleware Courts.

41. David Bauder, “Defamation case against Fox News highlights role of its hosts in promoting 2020 election falsehoods,” The Associated Press, Aug. 21, 2025, https://apnews.com/article/fox-news-2020-election-defamation-smartmatic-4f073b7e0206b6a1b83f911e04c29da7.

42. Law Reporting Bureau, “Smartmatic USA Corp. et al., Respondents, v Fox Corporation et al., Appellants, et al., Defendant,” New York State Courts: Decisions, May 7, 2026,  https://www.nycourts.gov/reporter/current/3dseries/2026/2026_02891.shtml.

43. Tori Richards, “Agents detail ‘daily’ border fence battle, seek post-Obama ‘restart’,” Fox News, Feb. 27, 2017,  https://www.foxnews.com/politics/agents-detail-daily-border-fence-battle-seek-post-obama-restart.

44. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be Horrible at Dealing with Unauthorized Immigration.  Here’s Why,” Astute American, Oct. 10, 2024, https://www.astuteamerican.com/2024/10/24/donald-trump-would-be-horrible-at-dealing-with-unauthorized-immigration-heres-why.

This article provides a more detailed review of the southern border situation, immigration, and the first Trump administration; it contains an extensive list of sources at the end.  The following sources (45-49) are directly relevant to what was stated in this paragraph.

45. U.S. Customs and Border Protection, Immigration Inspection Program, Sept. 1, 2020, https://www.cbp.gov/border-security/ports-entry/overview.

46. Robert Warren, “US Undocumented Population Continued to Fall from 2016 to 2017, and Visa Overstays Significantly Exceeded Illegal Crossings for the Seventh Consecutive Year,” Center for Migration Studies, Jan. 16, 2019, DOI: 10.14240/cmsesy011619.

47. Joel Rose, “FACT CHECK: Migrants Are Not Overwhelming The Southwest Border,” National Public Radio, Nov. 2, 2018, https://www.npr.org/2018/11/02/663532238/fact-check-migrants-are-not-overwhelming-the-southwest-border.

48. Jens Manuel Krogstad, Jeffrey S. Passel, and D’Vera Cohn, “5 facts about illegal immigration in the U.S.,” Pew Research Center, June 12, 2019, https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2019/06/12/5-facts-about-illegal-immigration-in-the-u-s.

49. Adam Isacson, Carolyn Scorpio, and Maureen Meyer, “Not a National Security Crisis: The U.S.-Mexico Border and Humanitarian Concerns, Seen from El Paso,” Washington Office on Latin America, Oct. 27, 2016, https://www.wola.org/analysis/not-national-security-crisis-u-s-mexico-border-humanitarian-concerns-seen-el-paso.

50. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be Horrible at Dealing with Unauthorized Immigration…,” Astute American.

51. “The Anecdotal Fallacy,” Practical Psychology, https://practicalpie.com/anecdotal-fallacy.

52. Jesse Watters Primetime, “Jury Gets to Pick Which Crimes Trump’s Guilty Of,” Fox News, May 29, 2024, recording posted on Rumble, https://rumble.com/v4ymdsx-jesse-watters-primetime-may-29-2024.html.

53. “Jesse Watters Primetime Bias and Reliability,” Ad Fontes Media, https://adfontesmedia.com/jesse-watters-primetime-bias-and-reliability.

54. Bauder, “Defamation case against Fox News…,” AP.

55. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator…,” Astute American.

56. “Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits of alleged electoral fraud presented by Trump campaign,” Reuters, Feb. 15, 2021, https://www.reuters.com/article/world/fact-check-courts-have-dismissed-multiple-lawsuits-of-alleged-electoral-fraud-p-idUSKBN2AF1FQ.

57. The Ingraham Angle, “Laura Ingraham with Sidney Powell 11-10-2020,” Fox News, Nov. 10, 2020, recording posted on YouTube, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hHpKZwCLSes.

58. “AP | Associated Press Bias and Reliability,” Ad Fontes Media, https://adfontesmedia.com/ap-bias-and-reliability.

59. “US Dominion v. Fox News Network,” Deleware Courts.

60. “Fact check: Courts have dismissed multiple lawsuits…,” Reuters.

61. “Fox News (foxnews.com) – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/fox-news-bias.

Joe Rogan

62. Eddy Shearer, Lipka, and Matsa, “The Political Gap in Americans’ News Sources,” Pew Research Center.

63. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Joe Rogan,” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Joe-Rogan.

64. “Joe Rogan pledges to try harder after Neil Young Spotify row,” BBC, Jan. 31, 2022,  https://www.bbc.com/news/entertainment-arts-60192957.

65. Vanessa Otero, “Is The Joe Rogan Experience podcast biased? Is it reliable?,” Ad Fontes Media, published on YouTube, Feb. 2022, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kgFjGgtc3lQ.

Ad Fontes Media founder and CEO Vanessa Founder thoroughly explains in this video how and why Joe Rogan’s show was rated poorly in 2022.  Rogan’s podcast has since moved to skew more right-leaning since this video was published (he was centered left-right in 2022).

66. “Joe Rogan Experience #2341 – Bernie Sanders,” Spotify, reposted on YouTube, June 24, 2025, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mYVzme2fybU.

67. Marcia McNutt, C.D. Mote, Jr., and Victor J. Dzau, “National Academies Presidents Affirm the Scientific Evidence of Climate Change,” National Academy of Sciences, June 18, 2019, https://www.nationalacademies.org/news/national-academies-presidents-affirm-the-scientific-evidence-of-climate-change.

68. “IPCC Sixth Assessment Report,” The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, https://www.ipcc.ch/report/ar6/wg1/resources/spm-headline-statements.

69. Mark Lynas, Benjamin Z. Houlton, and Simon Perry, “Greater than 99% consensus on human caused climate change in the peer-reviewed scientific literature,” Environmental Research Letters 16 (11), republished by Institute of Physics Publishing, Oct. 19, 2021, DOI: 10.1088/1748-9326/ac2966.

70. Samantha Harrington, “Scientists agree: Climate change is real and caused by people,” Yale Climate Connections, Feb. 17, 2022, https://yaleclimateconnections.org/2022/02/scientists-agree-climate-change-is-real-and-caused-by-people.

71. Naomi Oreskes, “The Scientific Consensus on Climate Change,” Science 306 (5702), Dec. 3, 2024, DOI: 10.1126/science.1103618.

72. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission,”  https://www.britannica.com/event/Citizens-United-v-Federal-Election-Commission.

73. “The Anecdotal Fallacy,” Practical Psychology.

74. Laura Blessing, “Thank You for Your Service: How We Think About Federal Employees and the Federal Government, and Why It’s Important,” The Government Affairs Institute at Georgetown University, Nov. 13, 2025, https://gai.georgetown.edu/how-we-think-about-federal-employees-and-the-federal-government-and-why-its-important.

75. “Comparing the Compensation of Federal and Private-Sector Employees in 2022,” Congressional Budget Office, Apr. 2024,  https://www.cbo.gov/publication/60235.

76. Brendon Davis, “The Diminishing Role of Scientists in the Executive Branch,” Science Policy & Diplomatic Group at John Hopkins University, Jan. 15, 2025, https://www.jhscipolgroup.org/blog-1/executive-branch-scientists.

77. Sarah Kaplan, and Simon Ducroquet, “Scientists have captured Earth’s climate over the last 485 million years. Here’s the surprising place we stand now,” Washington Post, Sept. 19, 2024, https://www.washingtonpost.com/climate-environment/2024/09/19/earth-temperature-global-warming-planet.

78. Emily J. Judd, Jessica E. Tierney, Daniel J. Lunt, Isabel P. Montañez, Brian T. Huber, Scott L. Wing, and Paul J. Valdes, “A 485-million-year history of Earth’s surface temperature,” Science 385 (6715), Sept. 20, 2024,  DOI: 10.1126/science.adk3705.

The study, published in Science magazine, described in the Washington Post article.

79. “Joe Rogan Experience #2219 – Donald Trump,” Spotify, reposted on YouTube, Oct. 25, 2024, https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBMoPUAeLnY.

80. Christina A. Cassidy, “Far too little vote fraud to tip election to Trump, AP finds,” The Associated Press, Dec. 14, 2021, https://apnews.com/article/voter-fraud-election-2020-joe-biden-donald-trump-7fcb6f134e528fee8237c7601db3328f.

81. Daniel Barnes, “How Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election unfolded in the courtroom,” NBC News, Nov. 2, 2024, https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2024-election/trumps-challenges-2020-election-unfolded-courtroom-rcna175490.

82. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator…” Astute American.

This article provides a more in-depth examination of Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims and lawsuits, complete with direct quotes from some judges and case references.

83. Lisa Desjardins, “All the assault allegations against Donald Trump, recapped,” PBS NewsHour, June 21, 2019, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/politics/assault-allegations-donald-trump-recapped.

84. Meghan Keneally, “Trump Brags About Groping Women in Vulgar Remarks Caught on Tape, Chalks It Up to ‘Locker Room Banter’,” ABC News, Oct. 7, 2016, https://abcnews.com/Politics/trump-caught-tape-vulgar-language-women/story?id=42655874.

85. Larry Nuemeister, Jennifer Peltz, and Michael R. Sisak, “Jury finds Trump liable for sexual abuse, awards accuser $5M,” Associated Press, May 9, 2023, https://apnews.com/article/trump-rape-carroll-trial-fe68259a4b98bb3947d42af9ec83d7db.

86. “What Racist Actions and Comments Has Donald Trump Made Since the 1970s?,” Factually, Apr. 6, 2026, https://factually.co/fact-checks/politics/donald-trump-racist-actions-comments-timeline-since-1976-2ced11.

87. Suzanne Gamboa, “Donald Trump Announces Presidential Bid By Trashing Mexico, Mexicans,” NBC News, June 16, 2015, https://www.nbcnews.com/news/latino/donald-trump-announces-presidential-bid-trashing-mexico-mexicans-n376521.

88. Deepa Shivaram, “Trump refuses to apologize after posting racist meme of the Obamas,” National Public Radio, Feb. 7, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/02/06/nx-s1-5704281/trump-posts-racist-meme-of-the-obamas-then-deletes-it.

89. Daniel Dale, “Fact check: 32 false claims Trump made to Joe Rogan,” CNN, Oct. 27, 2024, https://www.cnn.com/2024/10/27/politics/fact-check-trump-rogan-podcast.

90. Nicholas Riccardi, “FACT FOCUS: Trump repeated election lies in his interview with Joe Rogan. Here are the facts,” The Associated Press, Oct. 26, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/trump-election-lies-rogan-interview-ballots-voting-c8c06eb608c1b1ae8ca0e93ec1022b02.

91. Louis Jacobson, “Fact-checking Donald Trump’s claims about the 2020 election during his Joe Rogan interview,” The Poynter Institute, Oct. 28, 2024, https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/2024/donald-trump-joe-rogan-interview-fact-check.

92. Cassidy, “Far too little vote fraud…,” AP.

93. Barnes, “How Trump’s challenges to the 2020 election…,” NBC News.

94. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator…,” Astute American.

This article provides a more in-depth examination of Trump’s 2020 election fraud claims and lawsuits, complete with direct quotes from some judges and case references.

95. Search for “Joe Rogan Experience” on the Interactive Media Bias Chart at Ad Fontes Media.

96.” The Joe Rogan Experience – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-joe-rogan-experience-bias.

97. “Joe Rogan,” PolitiFact, https://www.politifact.com/personalities/joe-rogan.

98. Otero, “Is The Joe Rogan Experience podcast biased?,” Ad Fontes Media.

99. Search for “Joe Rogan Experience” on the Interactive Media Bias Chart at Ad Fontes Media.

Social Media, Podcasts, and the News Influencer Problem

100. Galen Stocking, Luxuan Wang, Michael Lipka, Katerina Eva Matsa, Regina Widjaya, Emily Tomasik, and Jacob Liedke, “America’s News Influencers,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 18, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/11/18/americas-news-influencers.

101. Wang and Forman-Katz, “News Influencers Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center.

102. The Brian Lehrer Show, “Gen Z’s ‘Bro’ Media Diet,” New York Public Radio, Nov. 13, 2024, https://www.wnyc.org/story/gen-zs-bro-media-diet.

103. Galen Stocking, Luxuan Wang, Michael Lipka, Katerina Eva Matsa, Regina Widjaya, Emily Tomasik, and Jacob Liedke, “4. How news influencers who have worked for news organizations differ from those who haven’t,” Pew Research Center, Nov. 18, 2024, https://www.pewresearch.org/journalism/2024/11/18/how-news-influencers-who-have-worked-for-news-organizations-differ-from-those-who-havent.

104. “SPJ Code of Ethics,” Society of Professional Journalists, Sept. 6, 2014, https://www.spj.org/spj-code-of-ethics.

105. Wang and Forman-Katz, “News Influencers Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center.

106. “Online Defamation Law and Social Media,” Justia, Aug. 2025, https://www.justia.com/injury/defamation/online-defamation-and-social-media.

107. Stocking, Wang, et al, “4. How news influencers who have worked…,” Pew Research Center.

108. “MediaWise,” Poynter Institute.

109. Abrams, “How to teach students critical thinking skills…,” APA.

110. “Our Research,” NLP.

111. “Cognitive Bias,” Encyclopedia Britannica, https://www.britannica.com/science/cognitive-bias

112. Fincham, “Why people believe misinformation…,” Phys.org.

113. Kassiani Nikolopoulou, “What Is Overconfidence Bias? | Definition & Examples,” Scribbr, Feb. 6, 2025, https://www.scribbr.com/research-bias/overconfidence-bias.

114. Hatty Willmoth, “The only real way to catch a liar, according to psychologists,” BBC: Science Focus, Mar. 21, 2026, https://www.sciencefocus.com/science/truly-terrible-spotting-liars-lying-deception.

115. Wang and Forman-Katz, “News Influencers Fact Sheet,” Pew Research Center.

116. Nicholas Barrett, “How have social media algorithms changed the way we interact?,” BBC, Oct. 12, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/articles/cp8e4p4z97eo.

117. Bobby Allyn, “Jury finds Meta and Google negligent in social media harms trial,” National Public Radio, Mar. 25, 2026, https://www.npr.org/2026/03/25/nx-s1-5746125/meta-youtube-social-media-trial-verdict.

118. “What are algorithms and how do they make social media more harmful?,” Center for Countering Digital Hate, Dec. 19, 2025, https://counterhate.com/blog/what-are-algorithms-and-how-do-they-make-social-media-more-harmful.

119. Stocking, Wang, et al, “America’s News Influencers,” Pew Research Center.

120. Alan Suderman and Ali Swenson, “Right-wing influencers were duped to work for covert Russian operation, US says,” The Associated Press, Sept. 5, 2024, https://apnews.com/article/russian-interference-presidential-election-influencers-trump-999435273dd39edf7468c6aa34fad5dd.

121. USCYBERCOM Public Affairs, “Russian Disinformation Campaign “DoppelGänger” Unmasked: A Web of Deception,” U.S. Cyber Command, Sept. 3, 2024,  https://www.cybercom.mil/Media/News/Article/3895345/russian-disinformation-campaign-doppelgnger-unmasked-a-web-of-deception.

More Right-Leaning Sources

122. “Newsmax – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/newsmax-bias-credibilty-reliability.

123. Costas Pitas and Jack Queen, “Newsmax paid $40 million to settle defamation suit over US 2020 election claims,” Reuters, Mar. 13, 2025, https://www.reuters.com/business/media-telecom/newsmax-agreed-pay-40-million-settle-defamation-suit-over-2020-false-election-2025-03-13.

124. “Smartmatic USA Corp., et al. v. Newsmax Media, Inc.,” Justia, Sept. 12, 2024, https://law.justia.com/cases/delaware/superior-court/2024/n21c-11-028-emd-0.html.

125. Maddy Lauria, “Judge finds Newsmax aired false and defamatory claims about voting-tech company,” National Public Radio, Apr. 9, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/04/09/nx-s1-5357885/newsmax-dominion-defamation-2020-election.

126. “US Dominion, Inc., et al v. Newsmax et al,” Deleware Courts, Apr. 9, 2025,  https://courts.delaware.gov/Opinions/Download.aspx?id=377980.

127. “McDougal v. Fox News Network,” Justia.

128. “Tucker Carlson Network (TuckerCarlson.com) – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/tuckercarlson-com-bias.

129. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Tucker Carlson,” https://www.britannica.com/biography/Tucker-Carlson.

130. Ido Vock, “Tucker Carlson interview: Fact-checking Putin’s ‘nonsense’ history,” BBC, Feb. 9, 2024, https://www.bbc.com/news/world-europe-68255302.

131. “Poland corrects ten Putin lies from Tucker Carlson interview,” Notes from Poland, Feb. 10, 2024, https://notesfrompoland.com/2024/02/10/poland-corrects-ten-putin-lies-from-tucker-carlson-interview.

132. Lauren Irwin, “Tucker Carlson blasted for interview with Holocaust revisionist,” The Hill, Sept. 6, 2024,  https://thehill.com/homenews/media/4866301-tucker-carlson-interview-holocaust-revisionist.

133. Encyclopedia Britannica, “Tucker Carlson.”

134. Amna Nawaz, William Brangham, and Sam Lane, “Tucker Carlson’s interview with antisemite Nick Fuentes exposes rift among Republicans,” PBS News Hour, Nov. 7, 2025, https://www.pbs.org/newshour/show/tucker-carlsons-interview-with-antisemite-nick-fuentes-exposes-rift-among-republicans.

135. “Breitbart – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart.

136. David Folkenflik, “Ex-Breitbart Executive Brings Alt-Right Ties To The White House,” National Public Radio, Nov. 15, 2016,  https://www.npr.org/2016/11/15/502165973/ex-breitbart-executive-brings-alt-right-ties-to-the-white-house.

137. “Trump ally Steve Bannon pleads guilty and avoids jail time in border wall fraud case,” National Public Radio, Feb. 12, 2025, https://www.npr.org/2025/02/12/g-s1-48347/steve-bannon-pleads-guilty-border-fraud.

138. David Ingram, “Before Epstein’s arrest, Steve Bannon worked to rebuild his image, files show,” NBC News, Feb. 12, 2026, https://www.nbcnews.com/tech/internet/epstein-files-steve-bannon-jeffrey-new-pdf-doj-trump-rcna258234.

139. Sarah Posner, “How Steve Bannon Created an Online Haven for White Nationalists,” Mother Jones, Aug. 22, 2016,  https://www.motherjones.com/politics/2016/08/stephen-bannon-donald-trump-alt-right-breitbart-news.

140. “Daily Wire Bias and Reliability,” Ad Fontes Media, https://adfontesmedia.com/daily-wire-bias-and-reliability.

141. “The Daily Wire – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/the-daily-wire.

142. “The Daily Wire – Bias and Credibility,” Media Bias / Fact Check.

143. “Daily Wire Bias and Reliability,” Ad Fontes Media.

Why Trust the Fact-Checkers?

144. “Methodology,” Ad Fontes Media, https://adfontesmedia.com/methodology.

145. See “Methodology,” “Corrections Policy,” etc., in “About & Resources” menu, Media Bias / Fact Check, https://mediabiasfactcheck.com.

146. “Rating Process and Criteria,” NewsGuard, https://www.newsguardtech.com/ratings/rating-process-criteria.

147. “AllSides Media Bias Rating Methods,” AllSides, https://www.allsides.com/media-bias/media-bias-rating-methods.

148. International Fact-Checking Network, https://ifcncodeofprinciples.poynter.org.

149. Jake Sheridan, “Should you trust media bias charts?,” The Poynter Institute, Nov. 2, 2021,  https://www.poynter.org/fact-checking/media-literacy/2021/should-you-trust-media-bias-charts.

150. Hause Lin, Jana Lasser, Stephan Lewandowsky, Rocky Cole, Andrew Gully, David G Rand, and Gordon Pennycook, “High level of correspondence across different news domain quality rating sets,” PNAS Nexus 2 (9), Sept. 2, 2023, DOI: 10.1093/pnasnexus/pgad286.

151. Lia Bozarth, Aparajita Saraf, Ceren Budak, “Higher Ground? How Groundtruth Labeling Impacts Our Understanding of Fake News about the 2016 U.S. Presidential Nominees,” Proceedings of the International AAAI Conference on Web and Social Media 14 (1): 48-59, DOI: 10.1609/icwsm.v14i1.7278.

But Isn’t the Liberal Media Just as Bad?

152. “Media Bias Chart,” Ad Fontes Media, https://app.adfontesmedia.com/chart/interactive.

Look up MS NOW, CNN, MS NOW The Rachel Maddow Show, and MS NOW The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell.  Compare to Fox News Hannity, Jesse Watters Primetime, and The Ingraham Angle.

153. “Media Bias Chart,” Ad Fontes Media.

Again, look up and compare MS NOW The Rachel Maddow Show and MS NOW The Last Word with Lawrence O’Donnell with Fox News Hannity, Jesse Watters Primetime, and The Ingraham Angle.

154. “Media Bias Chart,” Ad Fontes Media.

Again, look up CNN and compare.

155. “Media Bias Chart,” Ad Fontes Media.

Look up ABC News, NBC News, NPR, PBS News Hour, and all other sources mentioned, and compare.

Concluding Thoughts

156. Donald, “Stanford researchers find students have trouble judging…,” Stanford University.

157. Bradley Jones, “Fewer Americans now say Trump bears a lot of responsibility for the Jan. 6 riot,” Pew Research Center, Feb. 8, 2022, https://www.pewresearch.org/short-reads/2022/02/08/fewer-americans-now-say-trump-bears-a-lot-of-responsibility-for-the-jan-6-riot.

158. “After Three Years and Many Indictments, the ‘Big Lie’ That Led to the January 6^th Insurrection Is Still Believed by Most Republicans,” Public Religion Research Institute, Jan. 5, 2024, https://prri.org/spotlight/after-three-years-and-many-indictments-the-big-lie-that-led-to-the-january-6th-insurrection-is-still-believed-by-most-republicans.

159. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator…,” Astute American.

160. Corruption: 19 articles.

The Emoluments Clause is a provision in Article I, Section 9, Clause 8 of the U.S. Constitution that prohibits federal officials from accepting gifts, emoluments, offices, or titles from foreign states without the consent of Congress. This clause aims to prevent corruption and foreign influence on American officials.

The second Trump administration and Trump’s family have engaged in a variety of ways to flaunt or bypass these Constititional prohibitions.  Using the power of the presidency to grant favors for personal gain is bribery, and it adversely affects American security.

This topic is beyond the scope of this article.  Here’s a small sampling of articles to explore and gain some idea of what has been done.

“U.S. AG Pam Bondi Sold More than $1 Million in Trump Media Stock the Day Trump Announced Sweeping Tariffs,” ProPublica, https://www.propublica.org/article/pam-bondi-trump-media-stock-tariffs.

“White House backs ‘border czar’ after reports he accepted cash during undercover FBI probe last year,” The Associated Press, https://apnews.com/article/tom-homan-bribery-investigation-justice-department-461cc66955e2ba25445a9bf931250580.

“Trump boosts Argentina’s Milei with $20 billion lifeline as US buys pesos,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/world/americas/us-purchased-argentine-pesos-after-top-finance-officials-meeting-bessent-says-2025-10-09.

“Inside the Trump family’s global crypto cash machine,” Reuters,   https://www.reuters.com/investigations/inside-trump-familys-global-crypto-cash-machine-2025-10-28.

“How Trump’s ‘crony capitalism’ has shaken up U.S. business,” National Public Radio,  https://www.npr.org/2025/12/22/nx-s1-5639916/trump-crony-capitalism-free-market.

“Trump would like the government he leads to pay him billions,” National Public Radio,   https://www.npr.org/2026/02/18/nx-s1-5702503/trump-government-lawsuits-pay-himself-billions.

“Trump bought Netflix and Warner Bros bonds at height of bidding war with Paramount,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/sustainability/sustainable-finance-reporting/trump-bought-netflix-warner-bros-bonds-height-bidding-war-with-paramount-2026-03-09.

“Lucrative bets that anticipated Trump’s policy surprises warrant scrutiny, experts say,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/lucrative-bets-that-anticipated-trumps-policy-surprises-warrant-scrutiny-experts-2026-03-29.

“Company backed by Trump sons looks to sell drone interceptors to Gulf states being attacked by Iran,” The Associated Press, https://apnews.com/article/trump-sons-powerus-drone-interceptors-iran-missiles-1d8d858fdad5104a56e4438994093594.

“What to know about Trump’s nearly $1.8B fund to compensate allies claiming political targeting,” The Associated Press, https://apnews.com/article/trump-doj-fund-irs-trump-family-lawsuit-c9aaa94c59988508c253d7200043cecc.

“Trump sues IRS, Treasury Department for $10 billion over tax return leak,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/markets/us/trump-sues-irs-treasury-department-10-billion-over-tax-return-leak-2026-01-30.

“Judge dismisses Trump’s IRS lawsuit, paving the way for a settlement,” National Public Radio,  https://www.npr.org/2026/05/18/g-s1-119783/trump-irs-lawsuit-settlement.

“U.S. judge finds Trump misused court in IRS case, refers lawyers for discipline,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/world/us-judge-voids-trumps-settlement-with-irs-2026-07-13.

“US Justice Dept disbands crypto enforcement team, citing Trump order,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/world/us/us-justice-dept-disbands-cryptocurrency-enforcement-unit-2025-04-08.

“Trump’s new meme coin soars on his first day in office, lifts other tokens,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/technology/trumps-new-crypto-token-jumps-ahead-his-inauguration-2025-01-20.

“Trump invested crypto gains in stocks and bonds, filings show,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/legal/government/trump-invested-crypto-gains-stocks-bonds-filings-show-2026-07-13.

“Crypto, real estate, watches: How Trump made over $1 billion last year,” The Associated Press, https://apnews.com/article/trump-finances-real-estate-crypto-bibles-golf-8b8b54fae333d1200f4c1b509991b544.

“Trump administration ends civil, criminal cases against Adani after $10 billion investment promise,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/world/india/us-treasury-announces-275-million-settlement-with-indias-adani-enterprises-2026-05-18.

“Trump official helped secure US visa for fugitive Polish minister,” Reuters,  https://www.reuters.com/world/europe/trump-official-helped-secure-us-visa-fugitive-polish-minister-2026-05-18.

161. Brian, “Donald Trump Would Be A Dictator. Here’s Why,” Astute American.

This article provides a more in-depth examination of Trump’s criminal indictments and convictions.  Review the cited sources at the end for more detail.

162. Orwell, Nineteen Eighty-Four.

Image by beytlik on Pexels.com.