If you’ve spent any time on the "news" side of the internet lately, you’ve probably seen those pale-yellow articles popping up. They look different. They feel a bit more clinical. And naturally, because we live in a world where everything has to be a "team," the first question everyone asks is: Is Semafor liberal or conservative?
It’s a fair question. Honestly, it's the only way most of us know how to process information these days. But Semafor is kind of a weird beast. It was built specifically to dodge that label, yet it somehow manages to annoy people on both sides of the aisle.
The Short Answer: It’s Not That Simple
If you’re looking for a quick "yes" or "no," you’re going to be disappointed. Most major media watchdogs, like AllSides, currently give Semafor a Lean Left rating. Meanwhile, Ad Fontes Media (the folks behind the famous Media Bias Chart) usually places them pretty close to the middle, though often with a slight tilt toward the left in terms of story selection.
But here’s the kicker: if you ask a hardcore progressive, they’ll tell you Semafor is too cozy with corporate interests and "both-sides-ing" the truth. If you ask a MAGA Republican, they’ll point to the founders’ backgrounds at The New York Times and BuzzFeed as proof of a liberal agenda.
So, who’s right? Basically, they’re both seeing what they want to see.
The "Semaform" and Why It Matters
The most interesting thing about Semafor isn't its politics; it's the way they write. They use something they call the Semaform. Instead of a standard news story where the facts and the reporter's opinion are all mashed together into a narrative smoothie, they break it down into chunks:
- The News: Just the raw facts. What happened? Who said what?
- The Reporter’s View: This is where the journalist actually gets to say what they think. It’s transparent. They aren't pretending to be a robot; they’re telling you their analysis.
- Room for Disagreement: This is the part that really messes with people. They intentionally include a section that argues against the reporter’s own conclusion.
- The View From: Perspective from other parts of the world or different ideological corners.
- Notable: A curated list of other articles on the topic, often from competing outlets.
This structure is a deliberate attempt to rebuild trust. By labeling what is "fact" and what is "viewpoint," they’re trying to give you the tools to decide for yourself.
🔗 Read more: How Much Did Trump Add to the National Debt Explained (Simply)
Who is Behind Semafor?
To understand the bias, you have to look at the people in charge. The "Two Smiths" (no relation) founded the company in 2022.
Justin B. Smith is the former CEO of Bloomberg Media. He’s a veteran of the business side of journalism. Ben Smith was the media columnist at The New York Times and the founding editor-in-chief of BuzzFeed News.
Because Ben Smith was at BuzzFeed—a site often associated with millennial liberal culture—a lot of conservatives wrote Semafor off as a "woke" project before it even launched. But Ben Smith is also the guy who published the Steele Dossier and has a reputation for being a bit of a chaotic neutral in the media world. He cares about the "scoop" more than the "side."
The Money Trail
Money usually talks when it comes to bias. Semafor's funding is... diverse, to say the least.
They had a bit of a PR nightmare early on because their biggest initial investor was Sam Bankman-Fried (the FTX guy). After the FTX collapse, they actually moved to buy out his interest to maintain their reputation.
Since then, they’ve brought in a "who’s who" of the global elite:
- Henry Kravis: Co-founder of KKR (very much a Wall Street titan).
- David Rubenstein: Co-founder of The Carlyle Group.
- Stand Together: This is a network backed by Charles Koch.
Wait, the Koch brothers? Yeah. That usually sends liberal alarm bells ringing. But they also have backing from Jerry Yang (Yahoo co-founder) and Penny Pritzker.
💡 You might also like: The Galveston Hurricane 1900 Orphanage Story Is More Tragic Than You Realized
When you have a donor list that includes both the Koch network and Democratic-aligned figures like Pritzker, you aren't looking at a partisan mouthpiece. You’re looking at a publication for the "Global Leadership Class." ## Is Semafor Liberal or Conservative in Practice?
If you track their coverage, you’ll notice they don’t spend a lot of time on "culture war" red meat. You won't find many articles about the latest M&M's controversy or whatever is trending on TikTok.
Instead, they focus on:
- Global Power: What is China doing in Africa?
- Wall Street: Who is winning the AI arms race?
- Washington: What is the actual math behind the latest budget bill?
Because their audience is "decision-makers" (CEOs, government officials, policy nerds), they tend to favor a neoliberal, internationalist worldview. They like free trade. They like global cooperation. They like stability.
To a populist on the right, this looks like "Globalist Liberalism." To a leftist on the left, it looks like "Corporate Conservatism."
The China Controversy
Semafor has taken some heat for its relationship with China. They launched a "China and Global Business Initiative" in partnership with the Center for China and Globalization (CCG). Critics, including some in the U.S. government, have pointed out that the CCG has ties to the Chinese Communist Party.
📖 Related: Why the Air France Crash Toronto Miracle Still Changes How We Fly
Semafor’s defense? You can't report on the "Global World" if you ignore the second-largest economy. They claim they keep a firewall between their sponsors and their newsroom. Whether you believe that depends on how much you trust the "Semaform" to keep things honest.
How to Read Semafor Without Getting Fooled
Look, every news source has a bias. Period. If a reporter tells you they are 100% objective, they’re either lying or they don't know themselves very well.
The way to handle is Semafor liberal or conservative is to use their own format against them. Read "The News" section first. Then, read "Room for Disagreement." If the "Room for Disagreement" section feels weak—like they’re putting up a "straw man" argument just to knock it down—then you know the reporter is letting their bias bleed through.
Actionable Insights for the Savvy News Consumer
- Check the Bylines: Semafor gives their reporters a lot of autonomy. A story by Dave Weigel (who covers politics) might feel very different from a story about the Gulf states. Know who you’re reading.
- Look at the Ads: Notice who is sponsoring the newsletters. It’s often big energy companies, tech giants, or foreign governments. They aren't buying "bias," but they are buying "access" to the people who read Semafor.
- Compare the "Notable" Section: See what other outlets Semafor is pointing you toward. If they only link to The Guardian and The New York Times, that’s a red flag. If they’re linking to The National Review and The Wall Street Journal, they’re actually trying to be balanced.
- Diversify Your Diet: Never let Semafor (or any single site) be your only source. Pair it with something from the opposite end of the spectrum to see what they might be omitting.
Semafor is trying to be the "adult in the room" in a very loud, very angry media landscape. They aren't always perfect, and their "global elite" vibe can feel a bit out of touch, but they are providing a much-needed alternative to the "rage-bait" cycle that dominates most of our feeds.
Next Steps:
To see the bias for yourself, sign up for their "Flagship" newsletter for one week. Each day, specifically look at the Room for Disagreement section on a topic you feel strongly about. If you find yourself getting angry at that section, it’s a sign the publication is doing its job by exposing you to a viewpoint you don't like. If that section feels like it's "pulling punches," you'll know that particular reporter has a blind spot.