Overview

Ad Fontes Media rates Columbia Journalism Review in the Skews Left 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 “be the intellectual leader in the rapidly changing world of journalism.” CJR has been published by the Columbia University Graduate School of Journalism since 1961 and is based in New York City.

Overall Score

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

Reliability: 43.22

Bias: -6.39

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
The Ronna McDaniel incident reveals a deeper dilemma for journalism	-6.33	42
The Hacker	0	47.67
How Google is suffocating independent journalism in Latin America	0	40
Democracy and the Liz Cheney narrative	-13.67	36.33
All communities deserve deeply-reported, beautiful journalism	-1.33	41.33
Georgia, voter suppression, and big lies, plural	-7	41
It’s time to rethink how journalism covers guns and mass shootings	-5.33	40.33
Is the press too pessimistic about the pandemic?	0	43.67
What’s the right way to ask whether someone is gay?	-1.67	45.67
Why we capitalize ‘Black’ (and not ‘white’)	-2	44.67
Reporters hype—then waste—Biden’s first press conference	-3.83	45.83
How well does the media cover the climate movement?	-10.33	40.33
The COVID Tracking Project is (nearly) gone. Can we see clearly now?	-4	45
The NBA is blithely back to business as usual—and so are its reporters	-8.67	43.67
NPR’s tale of two crises at the Capital Gazette	0	43.67
Covering the Atlanta massacre from inside the Korean community	-7	42
The mystery of Tucker Carlson	-6.33	46
Adbusters and the roots of the contemporary left	-7	41.33
Racism, the culture wars, and the self-cancellation of Piers Morgan	-2.25	46
Panic Time	-6.33	43.67
Facebook asks the court to dismiss the FTC’s antitrust complaint	0	48.67
Twitter is caught between politics and free speech. I was collateral damage.	-2	42