The company, which says it takes an "apolitical approach" to rating news outlets, faces regulatory threats and a congressional probe because of its perceived bias against conservatives.
When magazines like Scientific American are run by ideologues producing biased dreck, it only makes it more difficult to defend the institution of science itself.
Trumpism, not Reaganism, is the doctrine of the Grand Old Party for the foreseeable future.
Her concurrence is a reminder that the application of criminal law should not be infected by personal animus toward any given defendant.
Contrary to popular belief, ideas can in fact be killed. And that reality has important implications for how we should handle various conflicts, including those involving Israel and Ukraine.
Why the businessman launched a long shot campaign for the presidency.
It is hard to tell whether these are genuinely different ideologies or two words for the same thing.
The surprising recent rise in partisan, racial, and gender differences in circuit judges following earlier opinions.
Companies who embrace political agendas to please some of their employees or customers risk alienating others.
Supporting restraints on government only for your opponents is a recipe for continued conflict.
Plus: The editors respond to a question about the Forward Party.
The real danger to citizens is the use of coercive government power, no matter how it’s named.
Economist Tyler Cowen argues this approach is too often neglected. But is more common than he suggests.
When it comes to political polarization, it's confirmation bias all the way down.
Extremists on the left and the right are much closer to each other than either side would like to admit.
No, it’s not an attempt to monitor faculty and student views. It’s an attempt to make sure they’re allowed to express them.
In the second of two posts on Tyler Cowen's idea, I assess whether state capacity libertarianism is the right path for libertarians to follow.
Is "state capacity libertarianism" really where "smart" libertarians are headed? I am skeptical.
The partisan factions aren't fighting for anything more than the power to destroy each other.
Historian Stephen Davies provides a good explanation of why fringe "cultic milieu" ideas are growing in influence. It's a troubling development, but not one that should lead us to categorically abjure non-mainstream political ideas.
Republicans, who have gleefully warned the public about Democratic flirtations with socialism, shouldn't be quick to gloat given the emergence of an anti-freedom movement on the Right.
Niskanen Center President Jerry Taylor argues that we should reject libertarianism and other ideologies in favor of "moderation." But, in truth, we cannot and should not abjure ideology. Trying to do so is likely to increase bias, not curb it.
The leading figures of the "Intellectual Dark Web" are incredibly popular. So why do they still feel so aggrieved?
In a pluralistic society, power is dispersed, and mutual consent is the order of the day
"I believe that the color of radicalism today is not red, but green."
Fear of a small group of unpredictable people is used to attack political opponents.
Commonweal's Alan Wolfe calls libertarianism "a total ideology, one that addresses every aspect of how people live."
When it comes to the truth, the real bias is thinking any one side has a monopoly on it.
This is not a simple "we win, they lose" scenario.
War, like most government plans, tends not to work out as well as planners hoped.
Both the right and left are biased in their reading of the science, and that's OK.
The argument between Thomas Paine and Edmund Burke never went away.
If only American politicians were as ideological as some say they are
Do you care about free minds and free markets? Sign up to get the biggest stories from Reason in your inbox every afternoon.
This modal will close in 10
