Methodology

Each news source we track is assigned a starting bias rating based on its broad public reputation and editorial track record — the kind of placement most people would recognise (the Guardian left-of-centre, the Telegraph right-of-centre, the BBC closer to the centre, and so on). These are working estimates we maintain ourselves, not a score licensed from an external ratings body, and we review them periodically.

Outlets rated -0.3 or lower are classed Left, those between are Centre, and +0.3 or higher are classed Right. This is a simplification of a genuinely complicated picture — most outlets vary by section, journalist, and story — and we treat it as a useful starting signal, not a verdict.

When multiple outlets cover the same event, NewsDeck groups those articles into a single story. We do this by comparing the significant words in each headline — ignoring common words like "the" or "says" — and grouping articles whose headlines overlap enough to very likely be about the same event.

This is an automated, mechanical process. It isn't perfect — very similar but separate stories can occasionally be merged, and the same story phrased very differently across outlets can occasionally be missed. We're upfront that this is heuristic matching, not human judgement.

A story is marked as having multi-spectrum coverage only when it has at least one source from the Left, at least one from the Centre, and at least one from the Right. Many stories — particularly sport, entertainment, or single-outlet exclusives — simply don't have political coverage on all sides, and we say so on the page rather than forcing a bias framing where one doesn't apply.

Sentiment reflects the emotional tone of coverage — broadly negative, neutral, or positive — not whether a story is "good" or "bad" news in a factual sense. A sentiment score is a signal about tone, not an endorsement of any viewpoint.

News articles are pulled from the public RSS feeds of the outlets we track, refreshed every 30 minutes.

MP data — names, parties, constituencies, photos, and tenure — comes directly from the official UK Parliament Members API, a primary government source, not a third-party aggregator.

MP pay figures are sourced from IPSA (the Independent Parliamentary Standards Authority), the official body that sets MP remuneration. Where we're not yet confident a figure is fully verified — such as additional pay for Cabinet or committee roles — we say so explicitly rather than guess.

Manifesto tracking is compiled and reviewed by NewsDeck against public manifesto commitments and subsequent news coverage. Status judgements (delivered, in progress, blocked, etc.) involve editorial assessment of public evidence, and we welcome correction if we've got something wrong.

Declared affiliations (think tanks, unions, political campaign groups) shown on some MP profile pages come from the official List of Ministers' Interests. This register only covers government ministers — roughly 90 of the 650 MPs — not the whole House of Commons. We show this clearly on each page rather than implying we track affiliations for every MP, because we don't.

MP expenses figures come directly from IPSA's official published expenses data, covering parliamentary business costs only — staffing, office running costs, accommodation, and travel. This is not personal spending; it's public money MPs claim back for the costs of running an office and employing staff to serve their constituents.

Donations shown on MP pages come from the Electoral Commission's official donations register, filtered to donations made directly to an individual MP rather than to a central political party, and limited to donations accepted since the 2024 general election (4 July 2024). Donations only have to be declared above a statutory threshold, so this is not a complete picture of all financial support an MP may receive — only what the law requires to be made public, within this time window.

Automated systems make mistakes — a headline matched to the wrong story, a bias score that doesn't fit a specific article, a manifesto status that needs updating as new evidence comes in. We'd rather acknowledge that openly than pretend otherwise. If something looks off, we want to hear about it.