Methodology
How PressGrade Works
Why we built this
Trust in media has collapsed — but not for the reason most people think. The problem isn't that media is biased toward one party or another. The problem is that we've stopped asking the right question.
Most people evaluate media figures by whether they agree with them. That's not a measure of trustworthiness. That's a measure of confirmation.
PressGrade asks a different question: does this person operate with integrity? Do they get their facts right? Do they correct mistakes? Do they show you their sources? Do they tell you who funds them?
These questions have nothing to do with politics. A progressive outlet and a conservative outlet can both score 90. A centrist outlet can score 20. The score reflects behavior — not belief.
What we measure and what we don't
We care about:
- — Whether factual claims and headlines are accurate
- — Whether errors are corrected openly and promptly
- — Whether sources, funding, and conflicts are disclosed
- — Whether opinion is clearly labeled as opinion
- — Whether the figure shows genuine editorial independence
We don't care about:
- — Political affiliation or ideology
- — Whether we agree with their positions
- — Whether their audience is left or right
- — Whether they are mainstream or independent
Scoring Framework
The 5 criteria
Every score is built from five criteria, each weighted by its importance to trustworthiness based on academic research into media credibility. The weights were derived from the Knight Foundation/Gallup trust indicators study and cross-referenced against NewsGuard's practitioner methodology.
Factual Accuracy
The most important dimension. We assess whether factual claims are accurate and verified, cross-referencing against AP Fact Check, Reuters Fact Check, PolitiFact, and primary source documents. This also includes headline accuracy — whether headlines match the actual content without exaggeration or misrepresentation. A score of 5 means virtually no factual errors or misleading headlines in the past 12 months.
Correction Culture
Everyone makes mistakes. What matters is what happens next. This criterion evaluates how errors are handled: Are corrections issued openly and promptly? Are they prominent or buried? Are stealth edits used? Are mistakes denied or minimized? We score the quality of the correction process — not the number of corrections needed.
Source Transparency
A combined measure covering three dimensions: Are claims anchored to named sources and original documents rather than anonymous sources or circular reporting? Is it clear who funds and owns the outlet or figure? Are financial or political conflicts of interest disclosed when relevant? Transparency is the foundation of trust.
Content Integrity
Whether opinion and analysis is clearly labeled and separated from factual reporting. Whether content is produced with journalistic standards rather than primarily for engagement, outrage, or ideological reinforcement. Entities that blur the line between news and commentary without labeling score lower.
Editorial Independence
Whether the figure or outlet demonstrates genuine independence — including diversity of credible voices and perspectives, resistance to audience capture, and willingness to challenge their own audience's assumptions. We do not reward false balance — including fringe or discredited voices for the sake of \"both sides\" does not earn a higher score.
Score calculation
Each criterion is scored on a 1–5 scale, then converted to a weighted percentage. The criteria are weighted by their relative importance to trustworthiness — factual accuracy and correction culture carry the most influence, while editorial independence carries less. The final score is a number out of 100.
The weighting reflects journalistic priorities: getting facts right and correcting errors matters more than any other dimension of credibility.
Research basis
Our scoring criteria were developed from peer-reviewed research into media credibility and public trust. The five dimensions we measure — factual accuracy, correction culture, source transparency, content integrity, and editorial independence — reflect the trust indicators most strongly correlated with journalistic credibility in studies conducted by the Knight Foundation, Gallup, and academic researchers including those published in the Reuters Institute Digital News Report.
The relative weighting of each criterion reflects the strength of evidence linking each dimension to overall trustworthiness. Factual accuracy and correction culture carry the highest weight because research consistently shows these are the most diagnostic indicators of whether a media figure or outlet can be trusted over time.
PressGrade's methodology is intentionally transparent. We publish our criteria, their relative importance, and our assessment approach so that users, researchers, and journalists can evaluate and critique our work. If you believe our methodology has a flaw or that a score is inaccurate, we want to hear from you at dmhalp@gmail.com.
The 12-month window
Scores reflect only the past 12 months of documented behavior. People and organizations change. A figure who was reckless five years ago may operate differently today — and vice versa. We score who they are now, not who they were.
Confidence ratings
Every score includes a confidence rating reflecting how much documented evidence was available. A figure with extensive media coverage and documented behavior scores with high confidence. A lesser-known figure with sparse documentation will score with lower confidence — and we tell you that clearly.
Trust tiers
High Trust
Strong journalistic practices. Factual, transparent, self-correcting.
Moderate Trust
Generally reliable with notable weaknesses in one or more areas.
Low Trust
Significant credibility concerns. Consume with caution.
Very Low Trust
Pervasive credibility failures across multiple criteria.
Our commitment to neutrality
PressGrade has no political affiliation, receives no funding from media organizations or political groups, and has no financial interest in how any figure scores. Our methodology is public. Our criteria are documented. If you believe a score is wrong, we want to know — contact us at dmhalp@gmail.com.