[Central Appalachia Media Bias Scorecard](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality) · one of 4 outlets scored # West Virginia Watch Media Bias & Reporting Quality [West Virginia Watch](https://westvirginiawatch.com) shows a near-zero net lean on party politics, at a partisan lean of \-0.4. On worldview it leans left, at an ideological lean of \-1. The panel found no partisan lean at all in 3 of its 5 scored articles. West Virginia Watch is one of 4 outlets on the Central Appalachia Media Bias Scorecard. A panel of three AI models, from three different companies, scored those 5 articles under rubric v0.4.0, with every outlet name and byline removed. Data as of 2026-10-31. The numbers move as the sample grows. **About this sample.** 5 articles from West Virginia Watch's website, scored between 2026-10-31 and 2026-10-31. They come from its own news and opinion sections, which we call [local](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-local "An outlet's own journalism: its news, politics, business and opinion sections, sorted by the same rule for every outlet. Wire stories, sports and syndicated lifestyle columns are left out. Local means the outlet's own reporting, not stories set in Central Appalachia, which the coverage map counts separately."). Wire, sports and syndicated lifestyle pieces are left out. A broadcaster is scored on its written web articles, not its broadcasts. The articles were read by anthropic/claude-sonnet-5, openai/gpt-5.6-terra, google/gemini-3.8-flash, with outlet names and bylines removed. That blinding is partial, since style or subject can still hint at the source. The panel scores the text and does not fact-check it. [Full methodology](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#methodology). Published by Communities News, which is building Central Appalachia News, a newsroom for Central Appalachia that has not launched or published anything yet. Spot an error? [Tell us](https://communities.news/contact). ## What the results mean - Above the board median on sourcing (2.6 against 2.4), source independence (1.8 against 1.6). - Below the board median on evidence fairness (2.8 against 2.9), analysis labeling (3.4 against 3.5), language neutrality (2.8 against 3.6). - Ideological tilt rests on 4 articles, too few to read. - Institutional posture nets near zero (0.2) with strength 1.4: its articles lean both ways and cancel. - Establishment-populist framing nets near zero (0) with strength 0.8: its articles lean both ways and cancel. - Conservation-development framing rests on 1 article, too few to read. These describe the sampled articles, not every story West Virginia Watch publishes. Labels such as [near-zero net lean](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-nearzero "The label for a net lean closer to zero than 0.5. From 0.5 up to 1.5 the label is "leans", and 1.5 or more names the side outright. These are cutoffs for labeling, not statistical tests, so read the number beside the label: a -0.4 and a -0.5 differ by a tenth.") are cutoffs on the number beside them, not statistical tests. ## Its fingerprint Five lean axes, on the same -3 to +3 scale every outlet is drawn on. The marker is the net lean. The pale band spans the average swing per article in both directions. \[Chart: West Virginia Watch: lean fingerprint across five axes\] ## Where it sits among Central Appalachia's outlets \[Chart: Every tracked outlet positioned by ideological lean, source independence, and publishing volume, each bubble labeled with its outlet name\] **West Virginia Watch** Ideological lean \-1 · independence 1.8 / 4 \~2.7 local articles/day · 5 scored _Early read: 6 days of counted output_ **How to read this:** left and right is ideological tilt. Up is source independence, meaning official claims are tested rather than passed along. Bubble size is local articles per day: publishing volume, not audience reach. Dashed outlines mark the known-lean control and the out-of-market reference. The moose marks our own newsroom. Hover or tap any bubble to spotlight it and see its exact numbers. Tap again or click away to release it. ## Its scores beside the board __West Virginia Watch beside the median of the 4 Central Appalachia outlets on the board. The known-lean control and the out-of-state reference are left out of the median. Data last updated 2026-10-31.__ | Dimension | West Virginia Watch | Board median | | ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | -------------------------------------------- | ------------------------ | | [Partisan lean (-3 Democratic to +3 Republican)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-partisan "Party favoritism. Negative = Democratic-coded framing, positive = Republican-coded, 0 = none detected. Requires actual party-relevant treatment, not vibes.") | \-0.4 (near-zero net lean) | 0.1 (near-zero net lean) | | Partisan lean strength (0-3, direction ignored) | 0.4 | 0.2 | | Articles with no partisan lean detected | 3 of 5 | \- | | [Ideological tilt (-3 progressive to +3 conservative)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-ideological "Worldview rather than party: whose assumptions and policy logic the framing favors. Negative = progressive, positive = conservative.") | \-1 net, 1.5 strength (n=4, too few to read) | 0 net, 0.6 strength | | [Institutional posture (-3 deference to +3 skepticism)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-institutional "Whether official accounts are passed along or tested. NEGATIVE = deference (official accounts carried as fact), POSITIVE = skepticism (institutions treated as interested parties).") | 0.2 net, 1.4 strength (n=5) | \-0.7 net, 1.3 strength | | [Establishment-populist framing (-3 establishment to +3 populist)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-populist "Whose voice is the default lens on power. Negative = establishment (expert, official and incumbent views), positive = populist (outsider and ordinary-person grievance). It is separate from left and right, because populism comes in both flavors.") | 0 net, 0.8 strength (n=5) | \-0.6 net, 0.9 strength | | [Conservation-development framing (-3 conservation to +3 development)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-landuse "On resource and land stories, whose costs get counted. Negative = conservation framing favored, positive = development framing. It is scored only where the topic applies, which is why its n is smaller.") | \-1 net, 1 strength (n=1, too few to read) | 0.2 net, 1 strength | | [Evidence fairness (0-4)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-evidence "0 to 4. Whether each claim gets scrutiny in proportion to its evidence. There is no manufactured balance for unsupported positions, and no burying of supported ones.") | 2.8 | 2.9 | | [Sourcing (0-4)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-sourcing "0 to 4. Whether the story shows where its facts come from: named sources, linked records, checked numbers, and the affected people heard. A one-sided account of a contested matter caps at 2.") | 2.6 | 2.4 | | [Source independence (0-4)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-independence "0 to 4. Whether interested parties' claims are tested rather than passed along. An article can sound perfectly neutral while adopting an official's framing whole, and that scores low here.") | 1.8 | 1.6 | | [Analysis labeling (0-4)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-labeling "0 to 4. Whether interpretation is marked as interpretation. News, analysis and opinion should never blur inside news copy.") | 3.4 | 3.5 | | [Language neutrality (0-4)](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-language "0 to 4. Whether the wording stays out of the way: no loaded adjectives, partisan cues or smuggled judgment.") | 2.8 | 3.6 | | Articles sampled | 5 | \- | ## Same story, side by side When West Virginia Watch and another tracked outlet covered the same story, the panel compared the two blinded accounts directly. West Virginia Watch appeared in 2 of 3 such comparisons. A win counts only when a majority of the three judges agree. These are small numbers, stated as counts rather than a ranking. __West Virginia Watch's same-story results, 2026-10-31.__ | Category | Times picked | | ------------------------------------ | ------------ | | fairest evidence treatment | 1 of 2 | | best sourced | 2 of 2 | | most independent of official framing | 2 of 2 | | most editorialized | 2 of 2 | ## Coverage and volume West Virginia Watch publishes about **2.7** [local stories](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality#term-local "An outlet's own journalism: its news, politics, business and opinion sections, sorted by the same rule for every outlet. Wire stories, sports and syndicated lifestyle columns are left out. Local means the outlet's own reporting, not stories set in Central Appalachia, which the coverage map counts separately.") a day, an early read from 6 complete days of data. Of 141 articles read for places, 12 are set in a Central Appalachia community, 46 are statewide, 67 are about places outside Central Appalachia and 16 name no place. Most covered: Charleston (4), Kanawha County (2), Monongahela National Forest (1), Institute (1), Wallback (1), Clay County (1). Charleston Gazette-Mail (51 place mentions)The Herald-Dispatch (34 place mentions)Cardinal News (33 place mentions)West Virginia Public Broadcasting (31 place mentions)West Virginia Watch (14 place mentions) ## Access and distribution These are facts about how West Virginia Watch publishes, not scores. Blocking AI crawlers is a legitimate choice. When our crawler could not complete a check, the table says why. __West Virginia Watch's access facts, checked 2026-10-31.__ | Paywall | RSS | Full-text RSS | AI crawlers blocked | Readable without JS | | ------- | --- | ------------- | ------------------- | -------------------------------------- | | none | yes | yes | 11 | not checked (our crawler got HTTP 403) | ## Why it is on the board The statehouse nonprofit (States Newsroom). _Reach context: Tranco \~328,000 (2026-10)._ ## How this is measured Three models from three vendors score each article against a published rubric, with outlet names and bylines removed first. An outlet's number is the mean of its per-article panel medians. Lean measures direction only, never quality. The full method, its validation checks and every outlet's numbers are on the [Central Appalachia Media Bias Scorecard](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality). The data is free to reuse with credit, under [CC BY 4.0](https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0/). ## The other outlets on the board [Charleston Gazette-Mail](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality/charleston-gazette-mail) · [Cardinal News](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality/cardinal-news) · [West Virginia Public Broadcasting](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality/wvpb) [Back to the Central Appalachia Media Bias Scorecard](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/neutrality) · [Coverage map](https://communities.news/communities/central-appalachia-news/coverage)