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

RollingStone media bias and reliability

AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check place RollingStone on the left. We have seen it on 33 published stories of ours.

LeftMixed factuality

The short answers

Is RollingStone biased?

AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check place RollingStone on the left. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.

Is RollingStone left or right?

AllSides, Ad Fontes Media and Media Bias/Fact Check place RollingStone on the left. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Left.

Is RollingStone reliable?

The factual-reliability assessments we hold for RollingStone are Ad Fontes Media: Low factuality; Media Bias/Fact Check: High factuality. These are outlet-level assessments, not a guarantee that every report is correct.

What RollingStone has been covering

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

Who says so

3 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

Who owns it

  • Penske Media CorporationMedia Conglomeratedirect owner

Where it publishes from

Publishes from
New York, New York, United States
Official site
rollingstone.com
Seen publishing on
rollingstone.com, es.rollingstone.com
Access
Metered: some articles are readable, some are not
Wikipedia
Entry

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
33
Reports listed
34
We could read
0
First seen
4 August 2026

34 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 4 of those stories, outlets rated left were largely absent from the coverage and RollingStone ran the story anyway.

Across the 33 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, we logged no report earlier than RollingStone’s on 1 of them. Overall it filed a median of 21 hours after the earliest report we logged.

Measured 19 September 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 19 September 2026. Ratings pulled 4 September 2026.

Other outlets rated the same way

Publishers carrying the same published leaning as RollingStone, 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 RollingStone 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.

RollingStone media bias and reliability | MediaBias News