UnHerd

UnHerd Rated Center in February/March 2026 Small Group Editorial Review

An AllSides Small Group Editorial Review panel consisting of left-, center-, and right-leaning reviewers rated UnHerd Center (-0.5) in Feb./March 2026.

The Left and Center reviewers rated the outlet dead Center, and the Right reviewer rated it Lean Left. The weighted average of these ratings resulted in an overall Center bias rating.

Reviewers noted that UnHerd publishes a large amount of opinion and commentary, which influences how individual articles appear ideologically. 

The Left reviewer described UnHerd as exhibiting “a strong anti-establishment bias, but it clearly doesn’t matter whether the left or right is the 'establishment' — everyone catches heat.” 

The Center reviewer said the publication’s bias is often difficult to categorize because “it fluctuates week to week but seems to consistently include commentary from both sides.” The reviewer added that because the publication is heavily opinion-driven, story choice bias and authors’ political affiliations may be the most significant indicators of bias.

The right-leaning reviewer identified recurring examples of spin, subjective qualifying adjectives, negativity bias, and ad hominem language, particularly in articles discussing U.S. political figures such as President Donald Trump. “While I did encounter one article that was critical of a left-leaning figure, California Gov. Gavin Newsom, it was the only piece over the course of three days of coverage that took a critical tone toward someone on the Left,” the reviewer wrote.

Articles reviewed included:

• Poll: half of Labour voters would vote Green at next election
  • Reviewers labeled this news article as Center.
  • The article reported polling data about the UK Labour Party and Green Party.
  • A Center reviewer noted that the reporting was mostly factual, though the framing suggested some interest in Labour’s declining support.
• How JD Vance lost the foreign policy war 
  • A Center reviewer rated this article as Center. 
  • The panelist wrote the “article is quite critical of Republicans, though accurately depicts how neoconservatism has won out over Vance’s pre-election rhetoric.”
• Meet Chicago’s AOC 2.0
  • Panelists generally found this article to narrowly Lean Right.
  • Ad hominem / word choice bias: The article described supporters of the candidate as “urban ultraliberals watching [Abughazaleh’s] TikToks from Brooklyn to Berkeley,” displaying right- or centrist-leaning word choice.
  • A Left leaning reviewer wrote the author “praises another progressive candidate for being more competent, so the piece is not purely a critique of leftism.” 
  • A Center bias panelist said the piece was “a sharp criticism of Kat Abughazaleh, a new left wing fire brand.”
• How Trump’s war will hurt Europe
  • Panelists found this article ranged from Left to Center-left depending on interpretation.
  • Negativity bias: The author described international law as “moribund,” which a left-leaning panelist categorized as aligning “with a conservative perspective.”
  • Slant: The left-leaning reviewer also noted the author depicted migration as a “crisis” and blames it for “rises in violent crime, Islamic terrorism, unemployment, sexual assault, and support for the populist Right.”
  • The Lean Left reviewer said this piece “reads more liberal … except for the migration commentary.”
  • A Center reviewer wrote the “article feels like a classic left wing stance, very critical of conservative US conservative establishment and its militarism, not acting with Europe in mind.”
• Why Trump is losing the MAHA Moms They want health, not herbicides
  • Reviewers rated this article as Lean Left.
  • Word choice bias: A Right reviewer noted the phrase describing Joseph Mercola as an “uber-rich homeopathic medicine peddler,” which carries negative connotations compared to neutral descriptions such as “alternative medicine advocate.”
  • Negativity bias: The article framed mothers involved in the MAHA movement as “radicalized” or fringe.
  • Word choice bias: The Right reviewer wrote that the authors’ choice of  “Plump, painted Trump” signals ridicule and invites readers to adopt negative framing of the president. 
• Why Trump will win the tariff war Lawfare has never stopped him
  • Panelists generally rated this article as Center or slightly left of Center.
  • A Right leaning reviewer wrote that the “article criticizes President Donald Trump substantively, but it also attacks his opponents too.”
  • Mudslinging/Ad hominem: The author describes Trump as a “buffoon”
  • Spin: Calls tariffs an “economic bazooka,” - this metaphor dramatizes tariffs as destructive weaponry
• Gorton and Denton will break Labour’s fragile coalition
  • Panelists generally rated this article Center.
  • The piece analyzed political developments in UK constituencies (Gorton and Denton).
  • Reviewers said the article was critical of Labour but presented the political dynamics in a relatively analytical tone.
  • A Center reviewer wrote, “Tough to tell whether left wing or right, seems delighted at Greens’ surging.”
• Scott Galloway's woke-dick energy
  • This article was rated Center.
  • A Left reviewer noted that the article critiques both Scott Galloway, who is often associated with left-leaning commentary, and Jordan Peterson, a figure frequently associated with the political right.
• Gavin Newsom’s SAT remark cheapens the case for meritocracy
  • Panelists found this article to Lean Right.
  • A Right leaning reviewer noted “the article frames Newsom’s comments within a broader narrative that Democratic rhetoric risks undermining merit and aspiration.”
  • Mind reading: “Newsom’s obviously performative remarks about his poor SAT scores betray a failure to adequately appreciate this latter point. It comes off as calculating and manipulative.” 
  • The Right leaning reviewer wrote, “The article attributes motive (“calculating and manipulative”) without direct evidence, or knowledge, of Newsom’s internal intent.”
  • Spin: “When a leader jokes about a poor test score to signal relatability, he is trading on anti-elitist sentiments. The message is subtle but real: don’t worry, I’m not one of those high-scoring strivers.”
  • "Framing Newsom’s SAT scores comment as “trading on anti-elitist sentiments” guides the reader toward viewing the remarks as cynical political maneuvering with charged language, while failing to neutrally describe the event,” the Right leaning reviewer noted.

UnHerd Rated as Center in AllSides July 2023 Small Group Editorial Review

In July 2023, the AllSides team conducted a Small Group Editorial Review of UnHerd, in which we moved UnHerd’s bias rating from Lean Right to Center. 

A small group of AllSides reviewers — one person each with a bias on the left, center, and right — reviewed content from UnHerd for media bias. The team noted that UnHerd demonstrated a distinct editorial voice that did not fit neatly into the Western media landscape/left-right political bias spectrum. 

UnHerd did some original reporting, however, it published primarily analysis and opinion content, which were clearly labeled on the site. 

UnHerd selected featured photos that appealed to emotions. While the team found some photos implied a different bias than the prose they were presented with, UnHerd’s featured images often appeared to be chosen carefully and sometimes displayed elements of emotionalism or photo bias.

Featured Content

At the time of review, UnHerd frequently covered topics including the Russo-Ukrainian conflict, COVID-19, European and American politics, free speech, sex and gender, postmodernity, capitalism, globalism, and Atlanticism.

Feminist perspectives were prominently featured on UnHerd, but often in ways that broke from traditional modern feminist viewpoints. In an opinion titled “The Perversion of Lesbian Envy,” the writer criticized heterosexuality as a default, and both hetero and homosexual men who have “fetishized the erasure of women.” In another opinion piece, “The Corruption of French Feminism,” the writer claimed the American transgender movement is diluting gender-based movements in France.

UnHerd regularly featured content on NATO and the European Union, often condemning the alliances’ adversaries, but being critical of the bodies themselves, too. In an essay, “The NATO Mindset Leads to War,” the writer criticized NATO for its “rather violent track record,” despite being a self-proclaimed defense alliance. In an analysis, “How the EU Destroyed the Greek Left,” the writer highlighted the failure of Greece’s Left in its 2023 Parliamentary elections, and criticized the European Union for enforcing a “neoliberal order,” but was equally critical of conservative Hungarian Prime Minister, Viktor Orbán.

Also pertinent to NATO and the E.U., UnHerd frequently covered the conflict in Ukraine, criticizing both sides. In an analysis, “The Capitalists are Circling Over Ukraine,” the writer criticized Western governments and corporations like BlackRock and J.P. Morgan for their interests in Ukraine, yet said, “No one would blame Zelenskyy for choosing the lesser of two evils here: Western banks over Russian tanks.”

In an original report titled “The California Militia Ready for Civil War,” UnHerd profiled the rural Shasta County in the far North of California that has become a libertarian stronghold, particularly since the COVID-19 pandemic.

UnHerd Rated as Lean Right in October 2022 Independent Review

Previously, an October 2022  Independent Review returned a bias rating of Lean Right for UnHerd.

About UnHerd

UnHerd is a British digital news and opinion outlet founded in July 2017 by English conservative activist Tim Montgomerie, who left UnHerd in September 2018.

UnHerd was initially offered without a paywall, but has since implemented one.

In the “Our Mission” section of UnHerd (retrieved July 11, 2023), the publication claimed to have two main objectives: “to push back against the herd mentality with new and bold thinking, and to provide a platform for otherwise unheard ideas, people and places.” UnHerd said it aims to “identify those things that have been lost, as well as gained, by the liberal world order of the past thirty years” and “strive(s) to be always thoughtful rather than divisive.” UnHerd declared itself not aligned with any political party and to be interested in writers and ideas “from both left and right traditions.”

Third-Party Claims of Bias

Four days after UnHerd’s launch in 2017, Vice criticized the publication, calling founder Montgomerie a “Thatcher fan-boy… funded by an oligarch publishing the kind of people who are generally ‘unheard’ because people edge away from them at parties.” It also criticized UnHerd’s contributors as “a parade of people who already have big media profiles, or are think-tank directors with books out.”

British publications The Spectator, New Statesman, and The i have also provided commentary on UnHerd.

According to Financial Times, in 2017 UnHerd received funding from Sir Paul Marshall, co-founder and chairman of the London-based hedge fund, Marshall Wace.