Bias: Middle

Reliability: Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting

Background CTA chart

Compare the scores of Columbia Journalism Review to other sources on our free Interactive Media Bias Chart. Click Here!


Ad Fontes Media rates Columbia Journalism Review in the Middle category of bias and as Reliable, Analysis/Fact Reporting in terms of reliability. Columbia Journalism Review is a magazine for journalists that focuses on the media industry. It strives to “ensure that the standards of honest and responsible journalism remain the bedrock of our profession.” CJR has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961 and is based in New York City. The print magazine is published twice a year, and a podcast is published weekly. The website records approximately 449,460 visits per month.

Overall Score

The following are the overall bias and reliability scores for Columbia Journalism Review according to our Ad Fontes Media ratings methodology.

Reliability: 43.60

Bias: -5.98

Panels of analysts from Ad Fontes Media regularly review representative sample content to rate it for reliability and bias. Each panel of analysts comprises one left-leaning, one right-leaning, and one center-leaning analyst.

The team considers a variety of factors when rating content. To determine its reliability score, we consider the content’s veracity, expression, its title/headline, and graphics. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the sample content’s overall reliability score.

To determine sample content’s bias score, we consider its language, its political position, and how it compares to other reporting or analysis from other sources on the same topic. We add each of these scores to the chart on a weighted scale, with the average of those creating the content’s overall bias score.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to middle to most extreme right. The reliability rating, demonstrated on the chart’s vertical axis, rates sources on a scale from original fact reporting to analysis, opinion, propaganda and inaccurate/fabricated information.

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 40 are generally good; scores below 24 are generally problematic. Scores between 24-40 indicate a range of possibilities, with some sources falling there because they are heavy in opinion and analysis, and some because they have a high variation in reliability between articles.

Bias scores for articles and shows are on a scale of -42 to +42, with higher negative scores being more left, higher positive scores being more right, and scores closer to zero being minimally biased, equally balanced, or exhibiting a centrist bias.

Individual Content Sample Scores

These are the most recent content samples that Ad Fontes Media analysts have rated for this source.

Content Sample URL Bias Reliability
All communities deserve deeply-reported, beautiful journalism-1.3341.33
Georgia, voter suppression, and big lies, plural-741
It’s time to rethink how journalism covers guns and mass shootings-5.3340.33
Is the press too pessimistic about the pandemic?043.67
What’s the right way to ask whether someone is gay?-1.6745.67
Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)-244.67
Reporters hype—then waste—Biden’s first press conference-3.8345.83
How well does the media cover the climate movement?-10.3340.33
The COVID Tracking Project is (nearly) gone. Can we see clearly now?-445
The NBA is blithely back to business as usual—and so are its reporters-8.6743.67
NPR’s tale of two crises at the Capital Gazette043.67
Covering the Atlanta massacre from inside the Korean community-742
The mystery of Tucker Carlson-6.3346
Adbusters and the roots of the contemporary left-741.33
Racism, the culture wars, and the self-cancellation of Piers Morgan-2.2546
Panic Time-6.3343.67
Facebook asks the court to dismiss the FTC’s antitrust complaint048.67
Twitter is caught between politics and free speech. I was collateral damage.-242