A Consensus of Credible Reporting
If you've browsed through a number of Polymarket market descriptions, you'll notice that many of them can be resolved through a consensus of credible reporting. In this chapter, we'll discuss what that entails and how to determine whether a source is considered credible.
Determining Source Credibility
Establishing credible consensus requires careful evaluation of the sources making a claim. Not all media outlets are treated equally when assessing whether an event occurred or whether a report is reliable.
Sources that tend to lack credibility include tabloids, clickbait-driven platforms, and unvetted alternative media. Examples include the New York Post, which frequently uses sensational thumbnails and exaggerated headlines, and The Daily Beast, known for inflammatory language such as "MAGA hissy fit" in news coverage. Outlets like Breaking911, which aggregate unverified information and often lack original reporting, also fall into this category, especially when their claims are not independently corroborated by more reputable outlets such as AP News or Reuters.
One way to evaluate media reliability is by using the Ad Fontes Media Bias Chart, which provides an interactive visual guide to assessing both bias and reliability. The most trustworthy sources appear near the top and center of the chart, high on the vertical axis for reliability and close to the middle on the horizontal axis for minimal political bias. These include outlets like AP News, Reuters, USAFacts, and Pew Research Center, which are known for factual reporting, minimal editorializing, and a high standard of sourcing. When evaluating a claim, priority should be given to sources positioned in that top central zone.
Remember that reliability and political bias are not the same. A media outlet can have a left or right lean and still be reasonably reliable. However, in practice, sources with extreme political leanings, especially those on the far left or far right, tend to be less reliable than centrist or moderately biased sources, often due to lower editorial standards, heavier slanting, or a greater tendency toward sensationalism.
In addition to Ad Fontes, the site Media Bias/Fact Check (MBFC) offers detailed source profiles, including information on factual accuracy, transparency, and bias rating. For example, AP News is rated as least biased and very high in factual reporting. To check a source, simply visit mediabiasfactcheck.com and use the search bar to look up an outlet. MBFC also explains why a source has received a particular rating, often citing examples of misreporting, conspiracy content, or poor sourcing in less credible outlets.
When in doubt, prioritize reporting from outlets that appear high on the Ad Fontes chart and are rated as factual and neutral on MBFC. Avoid relying on claims that originate from sensationalist or fringe outlets unless they are independently corroborated by reputable sources.
Use of Non-Credible Sources
Non-credible sources such as clickbait or sensationalist outlets like The Daily Mail, The Daily Beast, Breaking911, and similar publications do not qualify for establishing consensus. Claims from these outlets are disregarded when they conflict with reputable reporting from credible sources such as AP News or Reuters. While non-credible sources may sometimes corroborate credible reporting, they must be dismissed when in conflict. When credible sources are available, they should be used instead of citing non-credible outlets.
A large number of non-credible sources does not outweigh a single credible report. Additionally, if only non-credible sources reach a consensus on a claim, it generally does not meet the credible source requirement. The absence of comment or denial from credible sources does not imply agreement or validation.
Example
For example, a credible Reuters headline might read Zelenskiy opts for more formal, calibrated wardrobe ahead of Trump meeting, giving minimal attention to the outfit itself and describing it only as black suit-style jackets and shirts. In contrast, a sensationalist headline from The Daily Beast reads Fox News Joins MAGA Hissy Fit Over Zelensky’s ‘Suit’, amplifying partisan reactions. Outlets like The Daily Mail further frame the appearance as a "suit," often citing right-wing commentators or podcasters, despite the lack of evidence he wore a full three-piece suit. Headlines alone are not sufficient to establish credibility, particularly when the article content contradicts them. In the Will Zelenskyy wear a suit before July market, several sensationalist articles claimed Zelenskyy wore a suit, but the body of those articles clarified it was only a suit jacket, not a full suit. As a result, the market resolved to "No."
Evaluating Consensus
A consensus of credible reporting for news events generally requires agreement from multiple reputable and independent news outlets. Common examples include AP News, Reuters, The New York Times, Bloomberg, and other established national or international media. Foreign-language outlets may also qualify. For example, Al Jazeera is a commonly cited source for Middle Eastern news, given its broad recognition as a reliable outlet.
It's important to note that the specific sources considered credible can vary by market context. However, they are generally drawn from reputable and independent outlets like those listed above. For example, general news markets may rely on AP News or Reuters, while sports markets might turn to sources like ESPN or other industry-specific media.
Independent Corroboration
A valid consensus must be based on independent corroboration. If multiple outlets are simply repeating the same original report without verification, that does not meet the standard for a true consensus. For example, if several articles reference a single CNN report without adding new sourcing or independent confirmation, that does not constitute independent corroboration. However, when outlets cite reporting from news agencies like Reuters or AP, which are often the original source of verified information, that is generally treated differently, especially if the news agency report itself meets the criteria for credibility.
In some cases, a single report by a reputable news agency may be considered sufficient to establish consensus, given the agency's role as a primary source of factual reporting. However, this only applies when the report is clear, direct, and free of speculation, and when no other credible sources provide conflicting information. Nevertheless, some may choose to wait for further corroboration from additional sources before proposing a market resolution.
The consensus must also directly satisfy the market event as stated. It is not enough for multiple sources to report on a rumor, leak, or unconfirmed claim. The reporting must clearly confirm that the conditions of the market have been met. For example, if a market asks whether a specific deal was signed, the consensus must verify that the deal was actually signed, not just that it is expected or being negotiated.
International Source Corroboration
When evaluating consensus for events in countries with state-controlled or heavily partisan media, extra scrutiny is required. Some outlets may act as extensions of government messaging and are not considered independent or credible on their own. Examples include Russia's RT, China's CGTN, and Iran's Press TV, all of which are widely recognized as government-affiliated and unsuitable as sole sources for market resolution.
Being a national or state-run media outlet does not automatically make a source credible. If a source lacks editorial independence and is not corroborated by other reputable outlets, it cannot serve as the basis for resolution on its own. This is particularly important in markets involving countries where the press is tightly controlled or used as a tool of state messaging. In such cases, credible consensus should come from independent foreign correspondents, international news agencies with on-the-ground reporting (such as Reuters, AP, AFP, or Al Jazeera English), or regional outlets with a demonstrated record of editorial independence.
This standard is especially critical in war-related markets, where claims about attacks, troop movements, or casualties require confirmation from sources with a reputation for factual reporting. Credibility is strengthened when both local independent outlets and international media confirm a claim. If trustworthy local reporting is unavailable, markets may require a delay in resolution until a reputable global source can verify that the conditions of the market have been met.
Cross-Spectrum Corroboration
Credibility also involves cross-spectrum corroboration. Reliable consensus is typically demonstrated when a claim or event is reported by sources from across the media landscape, including outlets with differing ideological leanings. The AllSides Media Bias Chart provides a helpful reference point for identifying the political leanings of major U.S. outlets, from left-leaning to center to right-leaning. When a factual claim is reported similarly by sources such as The New York Times (left), Reuters (center), and Fox News (right), this alignment increases confidence in its accuracy.
However, if a claim is reported only by ideologically aligned or fringe sources, especially without recognition from more neutral or opposing perspectives, it lacks cross-spectrum credibility. This is particularly true when those sources have a history of partisanship, poor sourcing, or sensationalism.
For example, if a claim is covered only by right-leaning outlets such as Fox News and The Daily Wire, and receives no independent confirmation from center or left-leaning sources like AP News, Reuters, or The New York Times, it does not meet the standard for cross-spectrum consensus. The same applies in reverse: claims reported only by progressive blogs or partisan left media without corroboration from more balanced or opposing outlets also fail to establish credible consensus.
Cross-spectrum corroboration helps reduce the risk of bias, misinformation, or agenda-driven distortion. It is especially important when assessing claims that are politically charged, sensational, or not directly supported by primary evidence.
Timing of Sources and Proposal Validity
The credibility of a market proposal also depends on the availability of supporting sources at the time the market is proposed. Even if the outcome is confirmed later, a proposal may still be successfully disputed if it lacked adequate evidence when submitted. Markets must be based on verifiable facts available at the time of proposal, not just facts that emerge hours or days later.
Inconsistent Terminology Within a Source
In some cases, even a single credible outlet may use inconsistent terminology across its own reporting. For example, The New York Times referred to Zelenskyy's outfit as a "suit" in one article, while another piece from the same outlet described it as a "suit jacket." This variation suggests that the source itself does not present a clear or unified account, and such inconsistency should reduce confidence in the interpretation.
In evaluating credibility, there should be consistency not only between different articles from the same outlet but also between an article's headline and its body content. For example, in the Zelenskyy suit market, some headlines referred to his outfit as a suit, while the body of the same article clarified that he wore only a suit jacket and shirt. This does not mean the terms used are equivalent. It only shows that the reporting is ambiguous and cannot support a clear resolution.
When Consensus Fails
If sources disagree or coverage is unclear, the threshold for consensus is not met. In those cases, the market is likely to be disputed. Apparent uncertainty, such as whether an outfit can technically be considered a suit, does not establish consensus. When interpretations vary or rely on borderline definitions without confirmation from credible sources, the threshold is not met.
Summary
To evaluate consensus, look for clear agreement among multiple reputable and independent sources. For example, AP News and Reuters both confirming that a bill was signed provides strong evidence. In some cases, a single report from a credible news agency like Reuters or AP News may suffice, but only if it is clear, direct, and uncontested. Cross-spectrum corroboration, such as agreement between The New York Times, Reuters, and Fox News, further strengthens credibility. Repetition of a single claim across partisan or sensationalist outlets, like Breaking911 or The Daily Mail, does not meet the standard and can even weaken your case if your argument relies on sources that are not widely considered credible. The reporting must clearly confirm that the market condition has been met.
Stricter Standards in Ambiguous Markets
In certain contexts, market rules may explicitly state that resolution requires a wide or overwhelming consensus of credible reporting. This language is often used in markets dealing with war, ceasefires, or international diplomacy where facts are slow to emerge and may be contested.
In markets involving sensitive agreements like U.S.–China trade deals, a wide consensus may include statements or official releases from both governments. Resolution may rely on communications from both sides, especially when media coverage differs across regions.
However, even official sources may be unreliable and require corroboration. For example, statements from figures like Donald Trump have previously been treated as insufficient without confirmation from credible reporting or formal documentation.
What's Next
Now that you understand what a consensus of credible reporting entails, let's take a look at the full list of UMA precedents to date.
Last updated