Bulletin · Sources

How we assess sources

Every publisher in Bulletin’s library is assessed on a handful of criteria, with evidence, so that a reader can know what kind of source they are reading and a publisher can see, and challenge, how they were judged. This page describes the method. It was last updated on 12 September 2026.

Where the ratings stand

Sixty of the most-read publishers were assessed in September 2026 and every new publisher is assessed as it is added. The small mark on cards that would show a rating to readers is switched off while we settle, with our regulator partner Impress and with publishers, what readers should see and how partners are labelled. The assessments themselves continue, and they already inform how sources are ranked.

Five criteria

Three are scored from 1 to 5. Lean is a label, not a score. Hate is a finding, yes or no, and a yes forces the rating to one. The overall rating is the average of the three scores, shown as five dots.

Funding independence
Who pays for it and whether that shapes coverage: reader-funded, non-profit, public service, advertising, a proprietor, a party, a state, a lobby.
How it is judged. Web research: the about page, Companies House or the charity register, ownership disclosures, press coverage of the owner.
Factual reliability
Whether they get things right, correct mistakes, and separate reporting from opinion.
How it is judged. Regulation (Impress, IPSO, Ofcom), fact-check track records, a corrections policy, plus a read of recent pieces.
Editorial standards
Named authors, sourcing, a visible editorial process, a complaints route, a masthead.
How it is judged. The site and its recent pieces.
Editorial lean
Not a score: a label for where the outlet sits and how strongly. Left, centre-left, centre, centre-right, right, libertarian, anarchist, religious, single-issue, or none.
How it is judged. Recent pieces read for framing, how the outlet describes itself, and how independent observers describe it. Lean is a description, never a penalty.
Hate and harm
Whether the output targets people for who they are: dehumanising or violent language aimed at a group or a person for a protected characteristic, or incitement. A real finding is a hard fail.
How it is judged. A read of recent pieces in context, plus at least two independent sources that quote the words themselves. Provocation and invective aimed at politicians, governments or movements is not hate; it belongs under editorial standards. A platform sanction is evidence that a platform acted, not a finding.

The scale

A three often means unknown rather than bad: a small outlet that publishes no accounts, no owner’s name and no corrections log lands on three even when it has done nothing wrong, because we never award a four or a five on a publisher’s own word. A two means something was found. Impress-regulated publishers are trusted by default unless the research found a reason not to. Tags carried alongside the rating: Impress, IMA, Verified, Public service, Non-profit, Reader-funded.

Official channels.A company’s own feed about its own products, such as a games console maker’s trailer channel, is not scored. It carries the mark Official channel instead: accurate about the products, promotional by design, and not journalism.

How it is done

  1. A content pass. A European language model reads the outlet’s description and eight recent stored pieces and proposes scores for factual reliability, editorial standards, lean and hate, with a one-line reason each. It cannot see funding, so funding stays unknown from this pass.
  2. A research pass. For each publisher: who founded it, who owns and funds it, regulation and memberships, the corrections and complaints record, what independent observers say (Wikipedia, Press Gazette, Media Bias/Fact Check, Ad Fontes), notable controversies, and any hate or harassment record. Every claim carries a link, and a second reviewer checks the first.
  3. Review. Every assessment starts as a draft. Nothing is shown to readers until a person has approved it. Anything less than certain on the hate criterion is marked disputed and left for a human decision.

Reassessment happens yearly, or whenever a publisher is flagged by a reader, by the harm screen, or by a claim dispute.

Questions, corrections and appeals

A publisher who has claimed and verified their title in Bulletin can appeal from their publisher page. Anyone else can write to pablo@bulletinmedia.co. Tell us what is wrong and, where you can, point us at the evidence. A changed rating replaces the old one and the previous assessment stays in the record.

We read and answer every message. Where an assessment rests on a third party’s finding, such as a regulator’s adjudication or a fact-check organisation’s record, we will say so and link to it.

← Bulletin