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!
None
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 exciting or shocking stories at the expense of accuracy, to provoke public interest or excitement.
The article's title and content about Boris Johnson's dog allegedly killing a swan owned by Queen Elizabeth II is sensational, focusing on a shocking event to attract readers.
Reframe the title to focus on the content of the book being discussed, rather than the sensational aspect of the dog incident.
Information that leads to incorrect conclusions or perceptions.
The article implies that the dog killed a swan, while in the body it is mentioned that it was a gosling, which could mislead readers.
Correct the title to accurately reflect the content of the article, specifying that it was a gosling, not a swan.
Leaving out important details that could change the perception of the story.
The article does not provide sufficient context or evidence for the claims made about the dog incident or the situation with Harry and Meghan's daughter's name, leaving out key information that could help the reader understand the full picture.
Include more background information and evidence for the claims made to provide a complete and balanced view.
Language that is partial or prejudiced towards particular views or outcomes.
The use of phrases like 'to Johnson’s horror' and 'characteristically thoughtful' suggests a bias towards portraying the individuals in a certain light.
Use neutral language that does not imply judgment or emotion.
Claims that are made without evidence to support them.
The article presents claims from a book and a 'former royal aide' without providing evidence or corroborating sources, making them unsubstantiated.
Provide evidence or statements from multiple sources to support the claims made in the article.
- 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.