Martha Stewart hits back at critics who slammed her for sinking a "small iceberg" into her cocktail on luxury cruise.

[ 02/09/2023 07:18 ] Read on home.nzcity.co.nz

Report Overview: The article contains a mix of objective and subjective statements. While it provides quotes from both critics and defenders of Martha Stewart's actions, it also includes biased language and sensationalism in the way the critics' comments are presented. Additionally, the article cherry-picks data by focusing on the opinions of glaciologists who defend Stewart's actions, while omitting the perspectives of environmentalists who may have a different viewpoint. Overall, the article lacks balance and objectivity.

Sides Objectivity Scores

Martha Stewart (60)

Critics (40)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

Martha Stewart

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

The article uses biased language to present the critics' comments in a negative light, such as referring to their opinions as 'slamming' and 'bragging'. This creates a negative perception of the critics and influences the reader's opinion.

One fan had told her: 'Martha the ice caps are melting don't put them in your drink.' Another said her brag was like a 'line from a dystopian novel.' Yet another critic said on social media: 'The earth is on fire but why not enjoy a good cocktail.'

Use neutral language to present the critics' comments without influencing the reader's opinion.

Cherry-picking data

The article selectively presents the opinions of glaciologists who defend Martha Stewart's actions, while omitting the perspectives of environmentalists who may have a different viewpoint. This creates a biased representation of the issue.

But Martha has been defended by glaciologist Eric Rignot. The professor in the Earth system science department at the University of California at Irvine told the Washington Post: 'It is not like she went to a glacier and carved a piece of ice off it.'

Include a range of perspectives from both glaciologists and environmentalists to provide a more balanced representation of the issue.

Sensationalism

The article uses sensational language to describe Martha Stewart's actions, such as referring to her post as 'tone deaf' and 'bragging'. This creates a negative perception of Stewart and influences the reader's opinion.

She was accused of posting a 'tone deaf' update on her social media on Tuesday (29.08.23) by bragging about her use of the ice during a Swan Hellenic cruise on the SH Vega expedition ship.

Use neutral language to describe Martha Stewart's actions without influencing the reader's opinion.

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.