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!
EU / EU Ambassador / EU institutions
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 mainly one side’s perspective without comparable space or detail for the other side’s arguments or evidence.
The article is almost entirely composed of the EU ambassador’s quotes and explanations. The Georgian government’s position appears only as a brief paraphrased claim in a question: „ასევე, ელჩმა უპასუხა შეკითხვას საქართველოს ხელისუფლების გაცხადებასთან დაკავშირებით, რომ „საქართველოს ევროკავშირში გაწევრიანების პროცესი არა მათ, არამედ ევროკავშირმა შეაჩერა“.“ No direct quote, detailed explanation, or evidence from the government side is provided, nor is there any official response to the ambassador’s criticism.
Add direct, full quotes from Georgian government representatives explaining why they claim that the EU, not the government, halted the accession process, including their interpretation of the European Council’s decisions.
Include any official written statements, press releases, or public speeches from the Georgian government responding to the enlargement report and to the EU ambassador’s earlier remarks.
Clarify in the body text that the article is reporting only the ambassador’s side and explicitly note that the outlet has requested or is seeking comment from the Georgian government, if such comment is not yet available.
Relying on the status of an authority figure or institution as primary justification, without presenting underlying evidence or alternative interpretations.
The article repeatedly uses the ambassador’s and EU institutions’ authority as the main basis for evaluative claims: - „ანგარიში დამანგრეველია. ანგარიშში ნათლად არის ნათქვამი, რომ ახლა საქართველო ევროკავშირისგან უფრო შორს არის, ვიდრე ორი წლის, კანდიდატის სტატუსის მინიჭებისას.“ - „სწორედ 2024 წლის გაზაფხულზე ნათლად და ხმამაღლა ვამბობდით, რომ არ მიეღოთ კანონი უცხოური აგენტების შესახებ, რადგან ამას შედეგები მოჰყვებოდა.“ - „მართლაც, 2024 წლის ივნისში, საქართველოს პარლამენტის მიერ ამ კანონის მიღების შემდეგ ევროპულმა საბჭომ მიიღო გადაწყვეტილება, რომ საქართველოს გაწევრიანების პროცესი დე ფაქტო შეეჩერებინა…“ The article does not summarize the specific passages of the enlargement report or the exact wording of the European Council conclusions; readers are asked to accept the ambassador’s interpretation largely on his authority.
Quote or summarize the key paragraphs from the European Commission’s enlargement report that support the claim that Georgia is ‘further from the EU’ than two years ago, so readers can see the basis for this assessment.
Include the exact wording or an accurate summary of the European Council’s June 2024 conclusions regarding Georgia, especially the parts that relate to ‘de facto’ suspension, rather than only the ambassador’s characterization.
Clarify that some statements (e.g. ‘ანგარიში დამანგრეველია’) are the ambassador’s evaluative interpretation, and distinguish them from directly verifiable factual content in the official documents.
Use of emotionally charged or strongly evaluative wording that can influence readers’ perceptions beyond the underlying facts.
The strongest example is the repeated use of the term „დამანგრეველი“ (‘devastating’) for the enlargement report: - „რაც შეეხება საქართველოს ევროკავშირში გაწევრიანების მისწრაფებას, ანგარიში დამანგრეველია.“ - „ანგარიში დამანგრეველი იყო.“ Also, the framing of EU documents as ‘გამომაფხიზლებელი ზარი’ (‘wake-up call’) is evaluative: - „ევროპული საბჭოს 2024 წლის ივნისის დასკვნები პირველი გამომაფხიზლებელი ზარი იყო“. - „გაფართოების ანგარიში მივიღეთ, რაც ალბათ, საბოლოო გამომაფხიზლებელი ზარია.“ These are clearly the ambassador’s value-laden characterizations, but the article does not contrast them with more neutral descriptions or alternative views.
Explicitly mark such phrases as subjective evaluations by adding clarifiers like „ელჩის შეფასებით“ or „მისი თქმით“ immediately before or after the evaluative wording.
Balance the evaluative language by briefly describing the concrete findings of the report (e.g. specific benchmarks not met, reforms delayed) in neutral terms, so readers see facts, not only strong labels.
If available, include any differing characterizations of the same report from Georgian officials or independent experts (e.g. calling it ‘critical but constructive’), to show that ‘დამანგრეველი’ is not the only possible interpretation.
Reducing a complex, multi-causal process to a single cause or a very linear narrative.
The causal chain is presented in a simplified, almost linear way: - „სწორედ 2024 წლის გაზაფხულზე ნათლად და ხმამაღლა ვამბობდით, რომ არ მიეღოთ კანონი უცხოური აგენტების შესახებ, რადგან ამას შედეგები მოჰყვებოდა. მართლაც, 2024 წლის ივნისში, საქართველოს პარლამენტის მიერ ამ კანონის მიღების შემდეგ ევროპულმა საბჭომ მიიღო გადაწყვეტილება, რომ საქართველოს გაწევრიანების პროცესი დე ფაქტო შეეჩერებინა…“ This suggests that adoption of the ‘foreign agents’ law alone led to the ‘de facto’ halt, without mentioning other factors that the EU has cited (e.g. broader rule-of-law concerns, political polarization, media freedom issues).
Add a brief note that the EU’s assessment of Georgia’s accession process is based on multiple criteria (rule of law, democratic standards, human rights, etc.), and that the ‘foreign agents’ law is one significant factor among others.
If possible, list or summarize other key concerns mentioned in the enlargement report or Council conclusions, to show that the situation is more complex than a single-law cause-and-effect.
Clarify that the ambassador is highlighting one major example, rather than implying it is the sole cause of the EU’s decisions.
Implying that because one event followed another, the first event caused the second, without fully demonstrating causality.
The passage: „…არ მიეღოთ კანონი უცხოური აგენტების შესახებ, რადგან ამას შედეგები მოჰყვებოდა. მართლაც, 2024 წლის ივნისში, საქართველოს პარლამენტის მიერ ამ კანონის მიღების შემდეგ ევროპულმა საბჭომ მიიღო გადაწყვეტილება, რომ საქართველოს გაწევრიანების პროცესი დე ფაქტო შეეჩერებინა…“ The sequence ‘we warned → law was adopted → EU de facto halted the process’ is presented as a direct causal chain. While the law clearly played a role, the article does not show the full reasoning or other contributing factors from official EU documents, which can make the causality appear more absolute than it is documented.
Include or summarize the specific parts of the European Council conclusions that link the law on ‘foreign agents’ to the decision on Georgia’s accession process, so the causal link is grounded in explicit text, not only in temporal sequence.
Use more cautious wording in the narrative (e.g. ‘ერთ-ერთ მთავარ მიზეზად დასახელდა’, ‘ერთ-ერთი ფაქტორი იყო’) to avoid implying that the law was the sole or automatic cause.
If available, mention any other conditions or concerns the EU cited as reasons for the ‘de facto’ halt, to show that the decision was multi-factorial.
- 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.