Lead Patriot

Right Leaning Commentary

Primetime News Outlet Called Out For Its Bias
The Scoop

Primetime News Outlet Called Out For Its Bias

Lists ranking the "best" and "worst" places to live often present themselves as objective analyses built on hard data. In reality, the outcome depends almost entirely on which factors receive the most weight. Change the criteria, and the rankings can change dramatically.

That criticism has been directed at CNBC's recent list of "America's 10 worst states to live in for 2026," which placed Arkansas, Oklahoma, Alabama, Missouri, Utah, Georgia, Louisiana, Indiana, Texas, and Tennessee among the nation's least desirable places to live.

For many conservatives, the rankings were less surprising than the methodology behind them.


In explaining its approach, CNBC said it relied on measurable factors such as crime rates, air quality, healthcare, childcare costs, and childcare availability. It also included categories such as the inclusiveness of state laws and reproductive rights as part of its quality-of-life calculation.

Critics argue that those latter categories reflect political preferences rather than universally accepted measures of quality of life. From that perspective, the rankings blend objective statistics with subjective judgments, making the final list as much a reflection of editorial priorities as of measurable living conditions.

The political overlap also caught the attention of many observers.


Every state on CNBC's bottom-10 list voted for President Donald Trump in the 2024 election, prompting critics to question whether the rankings were influenced by ideology as much as by data.

At the same time, another widely cited ranking paints a very different picture. U.S. News & World Report's list of the nation's fastest-growing states, based on factors including GDP growth, net migration, and increases in young populations, places Florida, Texas, South Carolina, Idaho, North Carolina, Utah, Arizona, Nevada, Tennessee, and Montana at the top.


Three of those states—Texas, Tennessee, and Utah—also appear on CNBC's list of the worst places to live.

That contrast became a focal point for conservatives responding on social media.

Florida Gov. Ron DeSantis argued that Tennessee's strong population growth undercuts the idea that it is one of the country's least desirable places to live.

"If Tennessee was really the worst state to live in people wouldn't be moving there in large numbers, which they are," DeSantis wrote on X. "Typical nonsense."


Others responded with humor. OutKick founder Clay Travis and former NCAA swimmer Riley Gaines, both Tennessee residents, joked that they hoped liberals would accept CNBC's rankings at face value and stay away from the state.

The disagreement ultimately comes down to what people believe matters most when evaluating where to live.


One approach emphasizes public policy on issues such as abortion access and LGBTQ protections as important components of quality of life. Another places greater weight on economic opportunity, population growth, affordability, and the number of people voluntarily relocating to a state.

Supporters of the latter view point to migration trends over the past several years, arguing that Americans have already expressed their preferences through their moving decisions. States such as Florida, Texas, and Tennessee have experienced substantial population growth, while states including California, New York, and Illinois have seen significant numbers of residents leave.

Written by Arthur Higgens - July 16, 2026