I think it's better to manually assess bias and think critically about how news articles report information. The sites you linked are interesting, but had some

I think it's better to manually assess bias and think critically about how news articles report information. The sites you linked are interesting, but had some major flaws. For example, AllSides includes Breitbart as a source. While it identifies it with the maximum value to the right, it doesn't give a barometer of credibility. For a reader deciding whether Breitbart is worth reading, one should closely examine credibility, not just political leaning. PolitiFact and Media Bias/Fact Check discussed the credibility of Breitbart at length [0] [1]. Then for ground.news, the way it portrays bias is also relatively simplistic. The most prominent indicator is left/center/right, but biases have a lot more nuance. It's more useful to account for how certain publications take certain policy stances. Leanings can be anti-establishment, pro-establishment, socialist, neoliberal, pro-consumption (e.g. Wired), or anti-consumption, and this information is lost when relying on left-center-right categorizations. The best way to do this is to manually select a few publications that are high on factual credibility, write down their specific biases or leanings, and compare stories across the personally-curated selection of publications. You then personally have more control and understanding of the articles you are presented. [0] https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/stella-immanuel/dont-fall-video-hydroxychloroquine-not-covid-19-cu/ https://www.politifact.com/factchecks/2020/jul/28/stella-imm... [1] https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/ https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/breitbart/