Skip to the story
All StoriesPoliticsConflict & SecurityBusiness & EconomyScience & TechHealthClimateMedia

Consequence media bias and reliability

Ad Fontes Media places Consequence in the centre. We have seen it on 25 published stories of ours.

CentreHigh factuality

The short answers

Is Consequence biased?

Ad Fontes Media places Consequence in the centre. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.

Is Consequence left or right?

Ad Fontes Media places Consequence in the centre. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Centre.

Is Consequence reliable?

The factual-reliability assessments we hold for Consequence are Ad Fontes Media: High factuality. These are outlet-level assessments, not a guarantee that every report is correct.

What Consequence has been covering

Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with Consequence’s own report linked underneath.

Who says so

One organisation has published a rating for this outlet. 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.

High factuality

Who owns it

We hold no ownership record for Consequence.

Where it publishes from

Official site
consequence.net
Seen publishing on
consequence.net
Access
Free to read

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
25
Reports listed
26
We could read
6
First seen
4 August 2026

20 of those reports were paywalled or blocked to us. Our reading of this outlet is built on the 6 we could open, not on everything it published.

A blindspot is measured against one side of the spectrum. Consequence is rated centre, so there is no side for it to be counted against and we publish no figure here.

Across the 25 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, we logged no report earlier than Consequence’s on 2 of them. Overall it filed a median of 12 hours after the earliest report we logged.

Measured 4 November 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 4 November 2026. Ratings pulled 5 October 2026.

Other outlets rated the same way

Publishers carrying the same published leaning as Consequence, 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 Consequence 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.

Consequence media bias and reliability | MediaBias News