A good extra bit of data to have. Your link to the Media Bias / Fact Check for the site states that it "is biased and uses loaded language especially in headlin

A good extra bit of data to have. Your link to the Media Bias / Fact Check for the site states that it "is biased and uses loaded language especially in headlines" while not actually misreporting anything. It's an interesting and rather disturbing situation: how to define the boundary between acceptable and unacceptable levels of headline and conclusion sensationalizing w.r.t. providing an overall ranking of a source's "factualness"? There is presumably some level of sensationalizing that would undeniably transcend a hypothetical site's nominally-factual reporting to render its value as a socially-beneficial information source net negative. The hypothesis there would be that exposure to heavily-biased sensationalism over time might psychologically prime site readers to accept more and more extreme headlines as true, or that the sum total of the sensational headlines, while not directly deceiving the reader, might give him or her a false perception of reality along some specific axis of bias. However, I haven't studied the matter deeply and I have some reservations about this "gateway drug" theory. I wonder if any actual research has been done on this topic.