> In review, Foreign Policy covers news related to foreign affairs with minimal bias. Headlines are generally free from loaded words, though at times moderate such as this: Bernie Sanders Still Doesn’t Pass the Commander-in-Chief Test (anti-progressive) and this Trump Doesn’t Want to Play Peacemaker (anti-Trump). Both articles use proper sourcing. In general, Foreign Policy leans slightly right in their news coverage but balanced in reporting and well-sourced.

This is hilarious. I wonder if there's a political group that benefits from attacking both these positions.

Are you implying a specific group?

yeah, the old clintonites, the sinemas, maybe you can toss mitt romney in there. they're the most powerful political bloc currently, if you're new to politics

Basically the entire national security mainstream.

If you consider "america should be the number one power and do whatever it takes to stay that way" to be an unbiased and neutral statement, then sure, Foreign Policy is unbiased.

I wouldn't go to them for a viewpoint inclusive of American rivals, though.

ok, so is it correct that you're suggesting that mediabiasfactcheck is giving a better rating to FP in order to benefit those groups? Sorry if i'm seeming indirect, but i'm still trying to piece together your actual point

Maybe these will help

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Status_quo_bias

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Argument_to_moderation