A few weeks ago, before starting this blog, I worked with ChatGPT to develop a...

March 4, 2025

A few weeks ago, before starting this blog, I worked with ChatGPT to develop a framework that I could use with AI to rank media sites and individuals based on the level of misinformation they provide to the public. These media channels and personalities were shaping my worldview—demanding my attention, providing me with information, and influencing how I perceived current events. I watched their broadcasts, streamed their content, and read about them regularly. That’s when I thought: How much can I actually trust the information they’re providing?

This framework serves as a directional guide, helping me gauge how reliable a source is, how much of their content is spin, and whether they frequently engage in outright falsehoods. Now, whenever I come across a news story or an intriguing claim, I can enter the source’s name into my AI system, which then searches their history, evaluates their past statements, and ranks them accordingly. This doesn’t mean that a high misinformation score means everything they say is false—it simply reminds me to scrutinize their claims more closely, look for corroborating evidence, and sharpen both my own and AI’s critical thinking skills.

As part of testing this framework, I applied it to the top influencers in both media and politics to see how they scored and to better understand the kind of information we are consuming daily. It’s important to note that I didn’t choose these influencers upfront; rather, I built the framework first and then applied it to those who hold the most influence.

Additionally, as a test, I ran the framework through GROK 3, which provided minor recommendations and adjustments. Incorporating its insights helped refine the scoring system and improve its ability to differentiate between sources that occasionally mislead versus those that consistently distort facts.

Misinformation Framework: Evaluating Influencers & Media

Purpose

The Misinformation Framework is designed to identify and rank individuals and media outlets based on their role in creating and spreading misinformation. The goal is to assess their influence, responsibility, and impact, with a focus on both the originators of false narratives and those who amplify them.

Scoring Methodology

Each entity is scored based on two primary categories: Originator (those who create misinformation) and Spreader (those who amplify it). The maximum possible score is 250 points.

Category 1: Originator (Max Score: 150)

Weight: 1.5x multiplierRationale: Originating false narratives has greater consequences than merely sharing them.

Subcategories:

Intent (Deliberate vs. accidental misinformation) – 25% (Max Raw Points: 25, Max Weighted: 37.5)

Narrative Control (Drives the narrative vs. just reporting) – 25% (Max Raw Points: 25, Max Weighted: 37.5)

Reach (How big their platform is) – 15% (Max Raw Points: 15, Max Weighted: 22.5)

Scale of Falsehood (Degree of misrepresentation) – 15% (Max Raw Points: 15, Max Weighted: 22.5)

Verifiability (Ease of debunking) – 10% (Max Raw Points: 10, Max Weighted: 15)

Impact (Consequences of misinformation) – 10% (Max Raw Points: 10, Max Weighted: 15)

Total – 100% (Max Raw Points: 100, Max Weighted: 150)

Category 2: Spreader (Max Score: 100)

Weight: 1.0x multiplierRationale: Spreading misinformation is harmful but often reactionary rather than intentional.

Subcategories:

Reach (How far their spread goes) – 25% (Max Points: 25)

Frequency (How often they share falsehoods) – 20% (Max Points: 20)

Intent (Knowing it’s false but sharing anyway) – 20% (Max Points: 20)

Persistence of Debunked Claims – 20% (Max Points: 20)

Impact (Harm caused by spreading) – 15% (Max Points: 15)

Total – 100% (Max Points: 100)

Category 3: Dual Role (Max Score: 250)

If someone is both an Originator and a Spreader, they are scored separately in each category, and their scores are combined:

Max Originator Score: 150

Max Spreader Score: 100

Total Max Score: 250

Example Calculation (Ron DeSantis)

Originator Score: 80/100 × 1.5 = 120

Spreader Score: 70/100 = 70

Total Score: 120 + 70 = 190/250

Ranked List: The 50 Most Influential Figures in U.S. Media and Politics

Introduction

This list identifies the most influential political figures, media personalities, and news organizations in the United States. The individuals and outlets included here have been selected based on their reach, influence over public discourse, and their role in either originating or spreading misinformation. This ranking takes into account their historical impact, audience size, and engagement levels in media, social networks, and political spheres.

Score Levels & Meaning (0 – 250 Scale)

Score Range | Label | Description
0 – 75 | Highly Reliable / Trustworthy | Mostly factual with minor bias. Very few misleading claims. Strong journalistic integrity.

76 – 125 | Mostly Reliable but Strongly Biased | Frames information to push an agenda, but rarely outright falsehoods.

126 – 175 | Unreliable / Frequent Misinformation | Regularly uses misleading or false information, more narrative-driven than fact-driven.

176 – 225 | Highly Untrustworthy / Manipulative | Consistently distorts facts, often for ideological, political, or financial gain.

226 – 250 | Disinformation / Bad Faith Actors | Actively fabricates falsehoods for profit, influence, or manipulation.

Final Takeaways

This framework provides a structured way to assess misinformation in media and politics, helping readers critically evaluate information sources.