Media Manipulation and Bias Detection
Auto-Improving with AI and User Feedback
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
- Objectivity Score
Media Manipulation and Bias Detection
Auto-Improving with AI and User Feedback
HonestyMeter - AI powered bias detection
CLICK ANY SECTION TO GIVE FEEDBACK, IMPROVE THE REPORT, SHAPE A FAIRER WORLD!
Critics
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.
Presenting information in a way that provokes strong emotions or interest, often at the expense of accuracy.
The article uses sensationalism by stating that there is a 'continuous battle regarding banned books throughout the country from conservatives' without providing sufficient evidence or context to support this claim.
Provide specific examples and evidence of the 'continuous battle' regarding banned books from conservatives.
Using headlines that are intentionally vague or misleading to attract attention.
The headline 'Fox News Host Confronts Ron DeSantis on Florida 'Banning Books'' is misleading because it implies that DeSantis supports banning books, while the article itself states that no books have been outright banned in Florida.
Use a more accurate headline that reflects the content of the article.
Selectively choosing data or evidence that supports a particular viewpoint while ignoring contradictory evidence.
The article cherry-picks data by mentioning the increase in attempts to censor books and challenges to titles, without providing context or comparison to previous years or other states.
Provide more context and comparison to previous years or other states to give a more balanced perspective.
Using language that favors one side or viewpoint over another.
The article uses biased language by referring to the law as an attempt to 'stifle discussion' and 'censor' topics, without providing a balanced perspective on the intentions behind the law.
Use neutral language to describe the intentions behind the law and present a balanced perspective.
Presenting information in a way that favors one side or viewpoint over another.
The article provides more space and quotes for critics of the law, while only briefly mentioning the perspective of Republicans who support the law.
Provide more space and quotes for supporters of the law to present a more balanced perspective.
Leaving out important details or facts that could change the interpretation of the information presented.
The article omits key information about the specific books that have been deemed inappropriate and removed from classrooms, which could provide more context for the reader.
Include information about the specific books that have been deemed inappropriate and removed from classrooms to provide more context.
Using the opinion or endorsement of an authority figure to support a claim or argument.
The article includes a quote from the American Library Association's Office for Intellectual Freedom (OIF) to support the claim that attempts to censor books have increased, without providing a balanced perspective or additional evidence.
Include a balanced perspective and additional evidence to support the claim about attempts to censor books.
- 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.