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, in order to provoke public interest or excitement.
The article uses sensational language such as 'sicko political environment', 'semi VIPs itch', and 'squalid squad'.
Use neutral language to describe the political environment and individuals involved.
Headlines that do not accurately reflect the content of the article.
The headline suggests Michelle Obama is actively working on a 2024 bid, but the article does not provide concrete evidence to support this claim.
Change the headline to reflect the speculative nature of the content.
Claims that are made without evidence or support.
Claims such as 'Obama has polled donors' and 'Michelle gets nominated' are presented without evidence.
Provide evidence for the claims or present them as speculation.
Language that is partial or prejudiced towards one side or another.
The article uses biased language such as 'dodo-in-chief' and 'temp' to describe Joe Biden.
Use respectful and neutral language to describe individuals.
Attempting to manipulate an emotional response in place of a valid or compelling argument.
Phrases like 'The system is broken' and 'America the Beautiful. Our country ’tis of what!?' are designed to evoke emotional responses.
Present arguments based on facts and logic rather than emotional appeals.
Presenting one side of a story or argument without a fair representation of the opposing viewpoint.
The article focuses heavily on negative aspects of the current political situation and potential candidates without providing a balanced view.
Include perspectives and information that represent different viewpoints fairly.
Selectively presenting data that confirms a particular position while ignoring a significant portion of related data or information that may contradict that position.
The article mentions 'credible sources few have access to' and 'a VIP doctor' without acknowledging other sources that may offer different insights.
Present a range of sources and data to provide a more complete picture.
Drawing an equivalence between two subjects based on flawed or false reasoning.
The article implies a false equivalence between the potential candidacy of Michelle Obama and the current presidency of Joe Biden without proper context or evidence.
Avoid comparing two subjects without a logical basis for equivalence.
- 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.