Is edhat.com biased?
Ad Fontes Media places edhat.com in the centre. We have seen it on 2 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is edhat.com biased?
Ad Fontes Media places edhat.com in the centre. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is edhat.com left or right?
Ad Fontes Media places edhat.com in the centre. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Centre.
Is edhat.com reliable?
The factual-reliability assessments we hold for edhat.com are Ad Fontes Media: Very high factuality. These are outlet-level assessments, not a guarantee that every report is correct.
What edhat.com has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with edhat.com’s own report linked underneath.
President Donald Trump will meet executives from Rio Tinto, BHP Group, Freeport-McMoRan and other mining companies on 9 August 2026 to discuss securing domestic and allied supplies of critical minerals. The administration seeks to address shortages in weapons production and counter China’s dominance in mineral processing.
edhat.com reported it asDifficult Transition Ahead For Defense Industry As Trump Confines Critical Materials From China – State Sources (opens edhat.com in a new tab)
Senator Alex Padilla proposed a bill to prohibit presidents and vice presidents from selling early access to their social media posts after Trump Media launched a premium service. The legislation targets what Democrats call an insider-information scheme, while right-rated outlets frame it as a partisan response.
edhat.com reported it asSen. Padilla Introduces Bill to Ban Trump From Selling Social Media Access (opens edhat.com in a new tab)
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.
- Ad Fontes MediacenterCheck it
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.
Very high factuality
- Ad Fontes MediaveryHighCheck it
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for edhat.com.
Where it publishes from
- Publishes from
- Santa Barbara, Santa Barbara County, California, United States
- Official site
- edhat.com
- Seen publishing on
- edhat.com
- 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
- 2
- Reports listed
- 2
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 7 August 2026
2 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.
A blindspot is measured against one side of the spectrum. edhat.com is rated centre, so there is no side for it to be counted against and we publish no figure here.
Across the 2 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of edhat.com: its report arrived a median of 2 days after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 10 August 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 9 August 2026. Ratings pulled 10 August 2026.
Other outlets rated the same way
Publishers carrying the same published leaning as edhat.com, also publishing from United States, 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 edhat.com 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.