The Media Bias chart is broken. We made a better one.

As a journalist and producer with nearly two decades in this business, I can confirm what most educated people already know: bias in journalism is inescapable.

There’s simply no such thing as unbiased journalism. None. Every part of journalism—from the words we choose to the stories we decide are worth telling—requires judgment. And that judgment is bias.

But how can we make sense of that bias? How can we understand not just that every outlet is biased, but how—and in whose favor?

Today in our NOTICE News+ Deep Dive, we’re tearing these charts apart. We’ll look at why they’re flawed, who benefits from the myth they perpetuate, and propose a new chart that exposes who serves the people—and who serves the powerful.

The lie of “unbiased” journalism ❌

Before we go any further, let’s be clear: the idea that journalism can be “unbiased” is a dangerous lie.

Every journalistic decision is shaped by values. What counts as a story? Which voices are considered credible? What context is included—or left out? Even the language we use (“clashes” vs. “assault,” “protesters” vs. “rioters,” “terrorism” vs. “resistance”) reveals where we stand, consciously or not.

Even if I’m telling you a fact like “the sky is cloudy,” I’ve made a subjective judgment about why that fact is important right now. And that judgment shows my bias: I assume you care about the weather. It’s not a world-changing bias, most humans care about the weather, but it’s a bias. You literally cannot do journalism without bias.

But instead of owning up to that, most corporate-owned news outlets pretend to float above the fray, as if neutrality is not just possible, but morally superior. In practice, that “neutrality” means reinforcing the assumptions of the powerful: capitalism is natural, billionaires are job creators, and America always means well.

The obsession with appearing unbiased ends up producing a very specific kind of bias: one that favors the status quo. It centers the worldview of elites, corporations, and political institutions while treating anything that challenges them as fringe, extreme, or unserious.

This is exactly why “left,” “right,” and “center” are such flawed ways to describe our politics—or our media. They flatten complexity, obscure power, and imply there’s something inherently reasonable about the middle, no matter how broken or unjust the system actually is. (But that’s for another Deep Dive 😉)

Since they use this flawed framework, this is why existing media bias charts fail so completely. They don’t measure truth or accountability. They measure how comfortably an outlet fits within an establishment consensus that’s already skewed toward wealth and power.

The current, flawed charts 📊

Two media bias charts dominate the conversation: Ad Fontes and AllSides. You’ve probably seen them—bright, color-coded maps promising to show you which outlets are “balanced,” which lean left or right, and which are supposedly too biased to trust. They’re everywhere: in classrooms, media literacy programs, even corporate training.

They claim to cut through the noise. In reality, they reinforce it.

These charts don’t challenge bias—they hide it behind a false sense of neutrality. They frame media bias as a matter of partisanship instead of power. And by doing so, they uphold the idea that the “center”—as defined by wealthy institutions and corporate media—is the most reasonable, trustworthy place to be (it’s not).

To them, “center” equals neutral, reasonable, and correct. But in reality, “center” just means whatever the current status quo happens to be.

AllSides, a for-profit company started by two tech executives, claims to expose bias by comparing how different media outlets report the same stories from the left, right, and center.

On the surface, it seems like a useful tool—an easy way to “see all sides” and escape your bubble. But in reality, it does the opposite: it flattens all political difference into a simplistic, partisan framework that erases crucial distinctions.

According to AllSides, MSNBC and Democracy Now! both belong in the “Left” column—as if a billionaire-owned corporate cable network and an anti-capitalist, grassroots-funded outlet are pushing anything close to the same worldview. They’re not.

MSNBC defends capitalism, cheers on Wall Street, leans on former intelligence officials for commentary, and centers Republican voices. Several of MSNBC’s marquee hosts are Republicans—even if they’re anti-Trump.

Democracy Now!, however, questions capitalism itself, platforms Indigenous resistance, and challenges U.S. empire. Putting them in the same category isn’t just misleading—it’s ideological malpractice.

Ad Fontes, the other widely used media bias chart, goes a step further. Its chart doesn’t just map outlets along a left-to-right spectrum—it also ranks them by “reliability.”

At the top of the chart sit the familiar faces of corporate media: AP, Reuters, NPR, The New York Times, The Wall Street Journal. The farther down you go, the more “extreme” or “unreliable” the sources supposedly become.

But reliable to whom? According to whose worldview?

Their deeply flawed chart rewards outlets that speak in the language of institutional power—calm, polished, and deferential to official sources. It penalizes those that challenge dominant narratives, expose systemic corruption, or advocate for radical change.

This isn’t a measure of journalistic integrity. It’s a measure of how well an outlet reinforces the existing order. The “center” of the Ad Fontes chart isn’t neutral—it’s the ideological home of elite consensus, dressed up as “objectivity.”

The problem with these charts isn’t just that they oversimplify. It’s that they reinforce the very power structures journalism is supposed to hold accountable. They teach us to think in terms of partisanship—Democrat vs. Republican—while ignoring the systems both parties serve. They flatten real ideological diversity into meaningless labels and elevate a “center” that often stands for nothing but the status quo.

So let’s stop asking where the media falls on a left-right scale—and start asking who it serves.

A Better Way to Map the Media 🧭

If we want to understand media bias in any meaningful way, we need to shift the frame entirely. Not left vs. right. Not red vs. blue. Not even liberal vs. conservative.

The real question is about power.

Upgrade to NOTICE News+ to read the rest.