Objective
The Publishers Reliability Scoring pages provides a reference for assessing the trustworthiness of news and opinion sources. Curated by Quinn Sterling* this resource evaluates publishers and authors whose work has been found to lack consistency in accuracy or integrity. When public articles are under review for factual reliability, Quinn examines not only the content but also the track record of its creators—identifying whether their histories suggest balanced reporting or a pattern of selective, agenda-driven publication. This vetting process helps maintain clarity about which sources merit top confidence and which warrant skepticism.
Propublica
When Warnings Don’t Land: Six ProPublica Predictions and What Actually Happened
Overview
Between 2016 and 2025, ProPublica published numerous investigations highlighting potential crises or harms that, at the time, were framed as probable or imminent. Several of those predictions have not transpired or remain unverified. This audit reviews ten such cases and compares their warnings to measurable outcomes, using only authoritative, dated sources.
1. No Surprises Act Could Lead to Higher Insurance Premiums, Fewer Doctors (2024)
What ProPublica warned
That the federal No Surprises Act might drive premiums up and push doctors out of networks.
Outcome
Independent research finds no consistent national premium increases attributable to the Act; patients’ out-of-pocket costs fell.
ProPublica article: https://www.propublica.org/article/no-surprises-act-health-insurance-premiums-doctors-health-care
Brookings: https://www.brookings.edu/articles/a-first-look-at-outcomes-under-the-no-surprises-act-arbitration-process/
HHS/ASPE Report Two: https://aspe.hhs.gov/reports/no-surprises-act-report-two
Medical Economics: https://www.medicaleconomics.com/view/no-surprises-act-cut-patients-out-of-pocket-costs-by-about-600-a-year
Mass General Brigham: https://www.massgeneralbrigham.org/en/about/newsroom/press-releases/no-surprises-act-reduced-patients-out-of-pocket-spending
2. Georgia Law Could Lead to More Voter Suppression, Advocates Warn (2024)
What ProPublica warned
That SB 189 would trigger mass voter challenges and suppress eligible voters.
Outcome
Tens of thousands of challenges were filed, but few voters were removed; most challenges were dismissed.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-law-could-lead-to-more-voter-suppression
SB 189 PDF: https://gov.georgia.gov/document/2024-signed-legislation/sb-189/download
LegiScan: https://legiscan.com/GA/bill/SB189/2023
AP News: https://apnews.com/article/f817bc282ea44e008af74f6bf5793bd1
ACLU GA: https://www.acluga.org/press-releases/aclu-georgia-issues-statement-response-harmful-voting-bill/
3. California Disaster Funds May Be in Jeopardy under Trump’s FEMA (2025)
What ProPublica warned
That FEMA might cut off or jeopardize billions in disaster relief to California.
Outcome
FEMA’s Disaster Relief Fund continued disbursements; litigation narrowed or enjoined certain policy shifts but did not halt overall aid.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/california-disasters-fema-trump-funding-fires
FEMA DRF reports: https://www.fema.gov/about/reports-and-data/disaster-relief-fund-monthly-reports
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/trump-administration-violated-court-order-by-pausing-fema-grants-judge-says-2025-04-04/
Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2025/03/28/fema-blocks-disaster-aid-immigrants-00256910
AP News: https://apnews.com/article/93bedd862e4f240c7cc1d50907e3e95c
4. Supreme Risk Project (2023)
What ProPublica warned
That a conservative Court could imminently roll back numerous constitutional rights.
Outcome
The Court curtailed agency deference in Loper Bright but did not revoke major rights such as voting or marriage equality.
ProPublica project: https://projects.propublica.org/supreme-risk/
Loper Bright v. Raimondo opinion: https://www.supremecourt.gov/opinions/23pdf/22-451_7m58.pdf
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/legalindustry/after-chevron-deference-respect-loper-bright-agency-policymaking-2024-07-08/
5. A Georgia Election Rule Could Have Decisive Impact on 2024 Outcome (2024)
What ProPublica warned
That a new rule might allow counties to withhold certification, altering Georgia’s result.
Outcome
Courts reaffirmed mandatory certification contrary to ProPublica's urgings to the public; injunctions limited related rules.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-election-rule-could-exclude-votes
Politico: https://www.politico.com/news/2024/10/15/georgia-judge-hand-count-rule-00183854
Reuters: https://kelo.com/2024/08/19/republican-controlled-georgia-election-board-passes-rule-that-may-delay-vote-certification/
6. Georgia Counties May Get More Say in Delaying Vote Certification (2024)
What ProPublica warned
That new election-board powers could throw vote counts into chaos.
Outcome
Certification proceeded under court oversight; no chaos as pushed by ProPublica.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/georgia-election-board-vote-certification
Reuters: https://kelo.com/2024/08/19/republican-controlled-georgia-election-board-passes-rule-that-may-delay-vote-certification/
AP News: https://apnews.com/article/f817bc282ea44e008af74f6bf5793bd1
7. Health Insurers Are Vacuuming Up Details About You — And It Could Raise Your Rates (2018)
What ProPublica warned
That personal consumer/lifestyle data would drive individualized premium hikes.
Outcome
Did not transpire. National premium trends were affected by medical inflation and policy shifts; no evidence of algorithmic lifestyle-data pricing at scale 7 years later.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/health-insurers-are-vacuuming-up-details-about-you-and-it-could-raise-your-rates
KFF 2025: https://www.kff.org/health-costs/2025-employer-health-benefits-survey/
Reuters: https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/us-health-insurance-premiums-rose-27000-families-2025-2025-10-22/
8. Bias in Criminal Risk Scores Is Mathematically Inevitable, Researchers Say (2016)
What ProPublica asserted
That racial bias in predictive-policing/sentencing algorithms was mathematically inevitable.
Outcome
Subsequent scholarship shows fairness trade-offs depend on definitions and data; inevitability framing is well-contested 9 years later.
ProPublica: https://www.propublica.org/article/bias-in-criminal-risk-scores-is-mathematically-inevitable-researchers-say
PDF mirror: https://www.courts.wa.gov/content/publicupload/eclips/2017%2001%2012%20Bias%20in%20Criminal%20Risk%20Scores%20Is%20Mathematically%20Inevitable%20Researchers%20Say.pdf
MIT HDSR: https://hdsr.mitpress.mit.edu/pub/7z10o269
Barenstein 2019: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1906.04711