FOCUS online media bias and reliability
The bias data this site ingests places FOCUS online as leaning right. It does not name the organisation that made that assessment, so we publish it as an unattributed rating and nothing more. We have seen it on 4 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is FOCUS online biased?
The bias data this site ingests places FOCUS online as leaning right. It does not name the organisation that made that assessment, so we publish it as an unattributed rating and nothing more. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is FOCUS online left or right?
The bias data this site ingests places FOCUS online as leaning right. It does not name the organisation that made that assessment, so we publish it as an unattributed rating and nothing more. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Right.
Is FOCUS online reliable?
The factuality data this site ingests describes FOCUS online as high factuality. It reaches us without a named assessor, so it is an unattributed rating rather than our verdict. It does not guarantee that every report is correct.
What FOCUS online has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with FOCUS online’s own report linked underneath.
August 2026 was the hottest month on record globally, tying with July 2023, according to the Copernicus Climate Change Service. The record heat was attributed to human-caused climate change and a strong El Niño event, with sea surface temperatures also reaching new highs.
FOCUS online reported it asWarmest August Worldwide – Seas at Record Temperature (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
Apple has launched its first foldable smartphone, the iPhone Duo, at its 'Surprise and Shine' event. The company also introduced the iPhone 18 Pro and iPhone 18 Pro Max. This marks the first major product launch under new CEO John Ternus.
FOCUS online reported it asiPhone Duo: Apple Introduces First Foldable Smartphone (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
Jacob Coxon, a researcher formerly with OpenAI and Anthropic, has resigned, stating that leading AI developers are acting irresponsibly and "gambling with our lives." His departure has drawn comparisons to the Skynet scenario from the Terminator film.
FOCUS online reported it as"Playing with Our Lives: Researchers Leave Claude Company and Warn Against AI (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
A 27-year-old British researcher, Jacob Coxon, has resigned from Anthropic and the AI industry, citing concerns over the rapid, irresponsible development of self-improving superintelligence. He fears this race poses a significant risk to humanity, with some reports suggesting an existential threat by the end of the decade.
FOCUS online reported it as"Playing with Our Lives: Researchers Leave Claude Company and Warn Against AI (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
An Anthropic researcher has warned of a greater than 10% chance of AI causing human extinction in the next ten years. The warning follows a colleague's resignation over concerns about reckless AI development.
FOCUS online reported it as"Playing with Our Lives: Researchers Leave Claude Company and Warn Against AI (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
Britain will conduct a military exercise next year to test the mobilisation of its strategic reserve of about 95,000 former service members. The exercise aims to assess how quickly thousands of ex-servicemen can be recalled in a major conflict.
FOCUS online reported it asBritish Army Mobilizes Veterans to Prepare for War (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
Estonia's Centre for Defence Investments is under scrutiny for a failed €70 million ammunition deal. The controversy involves a Romanian facility contracted to supply shells to Estonia for Ukraine, with questions arising over the selection of firms lacking weapon production history.
FOCUS online reported it asEstonia Bought Ammunition for 70 Million Euros for Ukraine and Didn't Get a Single One – Defence Minister Resigns (opens FOCUS online in a new tab)
Who says so
The lean above is carried in the coverage data this site ingests, which names no rater for it. We publish it because it is what the rest of the site groups FOCUS online on, and we will not present it as an assessment by anyone in particular until we hold one.
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
The rating above reaches us without a named assessor, and is published as that rather than as anyone’s verdict.
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for FOCUS online.
Where it publishes from
- Publishes from
- Berlin, Germany
- Seen publishing on
- focus.de
- Access
- Metered: some articles are readable, some are not
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
- 4
- Reports listed
- 4
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 10 September 2026
4 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.
We have not seen FOCUS online cover a story that outlets rated right were largely absent from.
Across the 7 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of FOCUS online: its report arrived a median of 21 hours after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 10 September 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 10 September 2026. Ratings pulled 10 September 2026.
Other outlets rated the same way
Publishers carrying the same published leaning as FOCUS online, also publishing from Germany, 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 FOCUS online 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.