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!
Coin value / collectability is high and worth checking for
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.
Using attention‑grabbing framing to make an event seem more dramatic or exceptional than it is.
Headline and opening: "Common 50p coin sells for £100 and could be worth £145" and "A 50p coin has sold for more than 200 times its face value". The word "Common" in the title contrasts with later information that only around 210,000 were minted and that it is "highly sought-after", which makes it sound more extraordinary than the body text supports.
Change the headline to something more precise and less dramatic, e.g. "Rare 2009 Kew Gardens 50p sells for £100 on eBay".
Avoid the phrase "more than 200 times its face value" in the lead, or add context immediately (e.g. that this is within the normal collector range for this coin).
Clarify in the first paragraph that this is a known rare commemorative coin, not a typical or truly common 50p.
Headlines that give an impression not fully supported or properly contextualized by the article.
The headline: "Common 50p coin sells for £100 and could be worth £145". The article itself states that only around 210,000 were minted and that it is "highly sought-after" and the scarcest 50p in circulation, which contradicts calling it "Common". This can mislead readers into thinking any ordinary 50p is likely to be worth £100.
Replace "Common 50p coin" with "Rare Kew Gardens 50p coin" or "Rare 2009 Kew Gardens 50p".
Add a subheading or standfirst clarifying that this applies to a specific 2009 commemorative issue with low mintage.
Explicitly state in the headline or subheading that this is a rare variety, not a typical 50p.
Statements presented as fact without clear sourcing or data support.
1) "Money specialists reckon hundreds of thousands of these Kew Gardens coins remain in circulation" – no specific source, study, or named expert is cited. 2) "These later versions typically go for a lower price, though they have been known to achieve around £70 or £80 on eBay." – no data, time frame, or source is provided for these typical prices. 3) "experts value the coin at around £145" – "experts" are not identified or linked.
Name specific sources (e.g. a particular price guide, auction house, or numismatic expert) for the valuation of £145 and the estimate of how many coins remain in circulation.
Provide a time frame and data basis for the claim about 2019 coins "typically" selling for £70–£80 (e.g. "Based on completed eBay listings from the last 3 months...").
If precise data is unavailable, qualify the language (e.g. "some specialists estimate", "occasionally sell for", "asking prices of...") and make clear that these are estimates, not guarantees.
Relying on unnamed or vague authorities to support a claim.
"experts value the coin at around £145" and "Money specialists reckon hundreds of thousands of these Kew Gardens coins remain in circulation". The authorities are not identified, so readers cannot assess their credibility or methods.
Identify the experts by name or organization (e.g. "According to the XYZ Coin Price Guide" or "Numismatist Jane Doe of ABC Auctions says...").
Briefly describe the basis for their valuation (e.g. recent auction results, catalog prices, or market surveys).
If anonymity is necessary, explain why and frame the statements as opinions or estimates rather than definitive facts.
Presenting a complex or variable situation as simpler or more uniform than it is.
The article implies that finding a Kew Gardens 50p and checking the date is the main determinant of value, and that 2019 versions "typically" go for £70–£80. In reality, condition, grading, and market fluctuations significantly affect prices, and many circulated examples may sell for less.
Add a sentence noting that condition, demand at the time of sale, and where/how the coin is sold can significantly affect the price.
Qualify the price ranges as approximate and variable (e.g. "can sell for up to around £70–£80 in good condition").
Mention that not every coin will achieve these prices and that sellers should check recent completed sales, not just listings.
- 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.