The Anniston Star media bias and reliability
The rating organisations do not give The Anniston Star one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are AllSides: Centre; Ad Fontes Media: Centre; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. We have seen it on 6 published stories of ours.
The short answers
Is The Anniston Star biased?
The rating organisations do not give The Anniston Star one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are AllSides: Centre; Ad Fontes Media: Centre; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. An outlet rating describes a broad pattern in its output, not every article it publishes.
Is The Anniston Star left or right?
The rating organisations do not give The Anniston Star one shared verdict in the records we hold. Their published ratings are AllSides: Centre; Ad Fontes Media: Centre; Media Bias/Fact Check: Leans left. In the three-way grouping used on story pages, that puts it under Centre.
Is The Anniston Star reliable?
The factual-reliability assessments we hold for The Anniston Star are Ad Fontes Media: High factuality; Media Bias/Fact Check: High factuality. These are outlet-level assessments, not a guarantee that every report is correct.
What The Anniston Star has been covering
Our account of each story, written from every outlet that ran it, with The Anniston Star’s own report linked underneath.
The U.S. Federal Reserve has raised its key interest rate by 25 basis points, marking the first such increase in over three years. The unanimous decision aims to combat inflation, and was followed by a significant drop in gold prices.
The Anniston Star reported it asWhy Mortgage Rates Shot Toward 7% Before the Fed Raised Rates (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
A major scientific report indicates Greenland and Antarctica have lost between 11.3 and 12.5 trillion tons of ice since 1979. This loss has contributed to a global sea level rise of approximately 3 to 3.14 centimeters, primarily driven by accelerated glacier flow into the ocean.
The Anniston Star reported it asGreenland and Antartica lost staggering amount of ice last 50 years (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
The U.S. Food and Drug Administration has approved daraxonrasib, branded as Rasonque, for metastatic pancreatic cancer. In trials, patients taking the drug lived a median of 13.2 months, compared to 6.7 months on chemotherapy.
The Anniston Star reported it asFDA approves breakthrough pancreatic cancer drug – an oncologist explains how daraxonrasib nearly doubles survival (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
A major review of 80 randomized controlled trials found that nicotine e-cigarettes were more effective than nicotine replacement therapy for helping people quit smoking. The review involved nearly 30,000 participants and found no evidence of increased serious harm from using e-cigarettes to quit.
The Anniston Star reported it asDoes vaping help smokers quit more than gums and patches? (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
The Trump administration has proposed rescinding the 2001 Roadless Area Conservation Rule, which protects 45 million acres of national forest land. Conservation groups warn this could endanger hundreds of species and impact water sources.
The Anniston Star reported it asWhy Trump’s plan to rescind the Roadless Rule protecting national forests will struggle in court (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
A University of Vienna study used brain scans of twelve dogs to show that happy human faces activate the temporal cortex and caudate nucleus, while anger, fear and sadness produce distinct neural patterns. The findings, published in iScience, suggest dogs can differentiate between specific emotions.
The Anniston Star reported it asCan dogs tell fear from sadness? Brain scans may reveal answer (opens The Anniston Star in a new tab)
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.
High factuality
Who owns it
We hold no ownership record for The Anniston Star.
Where it publishes from
- Publishes from
- Talladega, Talladega County, Alabama, United States
- Official site
- annistonstar.com
- Seen publishing on
- annistonstar.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
- 6
- Reports listed
- 6
- We could read
- 0
- First seen
- 4 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.
A blindspot is measured against one side of the spectrum. The Anniston Star is rated centre, so there is no side for it to be counted against and we publish no figure here.
Across the 6 stories of ours where at least three of the reports we listed carried a time, another outlet was always ahead of The Anniston Star: its report arrived a median of 21 hours after the earliest one we logged.
Measured 22 September 2026. Last seen in a coverage list 22 September 2026. Ratings pulled 7 September 2026.
Other outlets rated the same way
Publishers carrying the same published leaning as The Anniston Star, 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 The Anniston Star 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.