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!
Sussexes
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.
Use of sensational language to provoke interest at the expense of accuracy.
The article uses phrases like 'the saga over “Lilibet” continues' and 'as angry as I’d ever seen her' to sensationalize the dispute over the name 'Lilibet'.
Avoid using sensational language and present the facts in a neutral tone.
Headlines that do not accurately reflect the content of the article.
The headline suggests that Queen Elizabeth gave her '100 percent' blessing, which is disputed within the article itself.
Adjust the headline to reflect the controversy and conflicting reports.
Taking quotes out of their original context to support a particular point.
The article quotes a staff member saying the Queen was 'as angry as I’d ever seen her' without providing the full context of the situation.
Provide the full context surrounding the quote to ensure accurate representation.
Choosing sources that support one side of an argument while ignoring others.
The article relies heavily on anonymous sources and quotes from royal biographers with potentially biased views.
Include a wider range of sources, including those with differing viewpoints.
Claims made without providing evidence or support.
Claims about the Queen's reaction and the Sussexes' statement are presented without concrete evidence.
Provide evidence or clarify when information is based on hearsay or unverified sources.
Using the opinion of an authority figure in place of a logical argument.
The article cites 'royal expert Robert Hardman' and 'royal biographer Omid Scobie' as authorities without critically examining their claims.
Evaluate the credibility of the experts and present their opinions as such, not as facts.
The tendency to search for, interpret, favor, and recall information in a way that confirms one's preexisting beliefs or hypotheses.
The article seems to favor the narrative of a dispute, which may align with the public's existing perceptions of tension within the royal family.
Present information that challenges the prevailing narrative as well.
Using sources without naming them, which can affect the credibility of the information.
The article quotes an anonymous source claiming the Sussexes had the Queen's permission, which cannot be verified.
Whenever possible, use named sources to increase the credibility of the information.
- 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.