Columbia Journalism Review Bias and Reliability Overview

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. Ad Fontes Media rates Columbia Journalism Review in the middle category of bias and as most reliable in terms of reliability.

Overall Score

A team of analysts at Ad Fontes Media regularly reviews articles and news programs to rate them in terms of bias and reliability. A weighted average of these ratings results in the overall score for the media source.

The bias rating, demonstrated on the Media Bias Chart®️ on the horizontal axis, ranges from most extreme left to neutral 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.

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

Reliability: 43.60

Bias: -5.98

Reliability scores for articles and shows are on a scale of 0-64. Scores above 24 are generally acceptable; scores above 32 are generally good.

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 the most neutral and/or balanced.

Individual Article Scores

The following articles were reviewed by Ad Fontes Media analysts on the basis of reliability and bias. Each article was reviewed by at least three analysts: one conservative, one liberal and one moderate.

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

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

Article URLBiasReliability
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