Cardinal & Pine media bias and reliability
The rating organisations do not give Cardinal & Pine one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are Ad Fontes Media: Left; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. We have seen it on 6 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is Cardinal & Pine biased?
The rating organisations do not give Cardinal & Pine one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are Ad Fontes Media: Left; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is Cardinal & Pine left or right?
The rating organisations do not give Cardinal & Pine one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are Ad Fontes Media: Left; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Left.
Is Cardinal & Pine reliable?
The factual-reliability assessments we hold for Cardinal & Pine are Media Bias/Fact Check: Mixed factuality. These are outlet-level assessments, not a guarantee that every report is correct.
What Cardinal & Pine has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with Cardinal & Pine’s own report linked underneath.
Pastor Daimon L. King, a registered sex offender with prior child-related convictions, delivered the opening prayer at a rally for North Carolina GOP Senate nominee Michael Whatley. Whatley's campaign stated they did not know King and that the event was not planned by the campaign.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asConvicted sex offender offered opening prayer at Michael Whatley rally (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
Republican congressional candidate Laurie Buckhout has been fined $2,500 and banned for three years from the prediction market platform Kalshi. The penalty follows Buckhout placing a bet tied to her own campaign, an action she acknowledged as a poor judgment call.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asRepublican congressional candidate penalized by Kalshi for improper betting (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
The North Carolina State Board of Elections voted against Sunday early voting in 20 counties where local election boards could not reach unanimous agreement. Decisions largely sided with Republican majorities on local boards, drawing criticism from Democrats and voting-rights advocates.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asThe partisan corruption of North Carolina's early voting plans (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
The US Agriculture Department plans to rescind the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, removing logging restrictions on over 40 million acres of national forest. The move, announced by Secretary Brooke Rollins, aims to reduce wildfire risks but is opposed by environmental groups who say it will increase them.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asTrump wants to open 'pristine' national forests for logging, including in NC (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
Rep. Chuck Edwards (R-N.C.) announced he will not seek re-election after the House Ethics Committee found substantial evidence of sexual harassment. The committee recommended censure, citing lavish gifts and inappropriate behavior toward two women staffers. Edwards will complete his current term.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asChuck Edwards drops re-election campaign (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
The Senate Judiciary Committee is set to vote Tuesday on advancing acting Attorney General Todd Blanche’s nomination after Republican senators secured written assurances that a $1.8 billion fund tied to the Trump-IRS settlement would not proceed. Democrats argue the guarantees fall short of permanent protections.
Cardinal & Pine reported it asThom Tillis says he will back Trump's controversial pick for attorney general, Todd Blanche (opens Cardinal & Pine in a new tab)
Who says so
2 organisations have published a rating for this outlet, in their own words. Where they disagree, the disagreement is the useful part and it is left standing.
How reliably it reports fact
A rating of the newsroom in general, by others, and a different thing from the Trust score we publish on each story, which judges one piece of reporting.
Mixed factuality
- Media Bias/Fact CheckmixedCheck it
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for Cardinal & Pine.
Where it publishes from
- Official site
- cardinalpine.com
- Seen publishing on
- cardinalpine.com
- Access
- Paywalled
What we have seen ourselves
Counted across the stories this site has published, which is the only denominator a reader can check: every one of them has a page, and every page lists the reports it was written from.
- Stories
- 6
- Reports listed
- 6
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 5 August 2026
6 of those reports were paywalled or blocked to us. Our reading of this outlet is built on the 0 we could open, not on everything it published.
On 1 of those stories, outlets rated left were largely absent from the coverage and Cardinal & Pine ran the story anyway.
Across the 6 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of Cardinal & Pine: its report arrived a median of 3 days after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 23 September 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 17 September 2026. Ratings pulled 8 September 2026.
Other outlets rated the same way
Publishers carrying the same published leaning as Cardinal & Pine, ordered by how often we have seen them on a story. Sharing a rating is not the same as being alike.
Think this page is wrong?
The leanings above are published by AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check, and we republish them rather than make them. If you think one is misapplied, the strongest place to say so is with the organisation that made it, and every verdict here links to their page.
What we are responsible for is everything else: the ownership chain, where Cardinal & Pine publishes from, which of our stories we have listed it on, and whether we have the right publisher at all. Tell us what is wrong and an editor reads it.
Report something wrong on this page
Anything we correct is written up in the public corrections log. We do not publish reader votes as a rating, because an unattributed rating is the thing this site exists to argue against.
Every rating on this page is a named third party’s published work, republished with its author and, where one exists, a link to it. Our own coverage record is the section we measure ourselves. Neither is a judgement of any individual report: those are scored story by story, and the reasoning is on our methodology page.