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!
Anti-fraud investigators / conservative critics (Republican lawmakers, conservative think tank, Fox News Digital, Townhall, etc.)
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 one side’s perspective extensively while giving little or no space to the other side’s explanations or rebuttals.
The article quotes at length from: - Bill Glahn (Center of the American Experiment) - Former assistant U.S. Attorney Joe Teirab - Republican State Senator Mark Koran - Political commentator and Townhall columnist Dustin Grage It repeatedly attributes motives and failures to Democrats and Somali political actors: - “criticism of the fraud has been largely dismissed by elected Democrats as 'racist'” - “local politicians were acutely aware that the 'racist label' is a 'career kiss of death.'” - “payments resumed, and crucially, Governor Tim Walz declined to use his subpoena power…” - “politicians in Minnesota understand that it is difficult to win elections without the support of the Somali community.” However, there are no direct quotes or detailed responses from: - Governor Tim Walz - Attorney General Keith Ellison - Rep. Ilhan Omar - Omar Fateh, Jamal Osman - Any Somali community leaders or organizations - Any Democratic legislators accused of dismissing fraud concerns as racist. Their positions are described only through the lens of critics, not in their own words.
Include direct responses or statements from Governor Walz, Attorney General Ellison, Ilhan Omar, Omar Fateh, Jamal Osman, and relevant Democratic legislators about the fraud cases and the racism accusations.
Quote Somali community leaders or organizations on both the fraud issue and the use/misuse of racism accusations, rather than speaking about the community only through critics.
Explicitly note where attempts to obtain comment were made and whether officials declined to respond, to clarify the reporting effort.
Add context on any actions Democrats or state agencies did take to investigate or prevent fraud, not only alleged failures.
Selecting only evidence that supports a particular narrative while ignoring relevant counter-evidence or broader context.
The article emphasizes: - Fraud “primarily within the city’s exploding Somali community” - That “fraud prosecutions disproportionately affected one community” - That “the Somali vote is very monolithic, votes Democrat” and “provided the difference in statewide elections” But it does not provide: - Comparative data on fraud in other communities or programs in Minnesota. - Statistics on the proportion of Somali Minnesotans involved vs. the overall Somali population. - Any mention of non-Somali perpetrators in the same or similar schemes. This selective focus can create the impression that fraud is uniquely or overwhelmingly a Somali-community problem without showing the full picture.
Provide comparative statistics on fraud cases across different communities and programs in Minnesota to show whether the Somali community is unusually represented or one of several affected groups.
Include data on the size of the Somali population vs. the number of individuals charged or convicted, to avoid implying community-wide guilt.
Mention other notable fraud cases in Minnesota that do not involve the Somali community, if they exist, to contextualize the issue.
Clarify that the individuals charged do not represent the entire Somali community and, if available, include examples of Somali leaders condemning the fraud.
Use of loaded or emotionally charged wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment.
Examples include: - “exploding Somali community” – suggests uncontrolled growth and can carry negative connotations. - “fraudsters knew the issue of race and racism was something they could use as a cudgel” – strong metaphor that frames one side as manipulative without nuance. - “Some perpetrators were so 'emboldened'” – evaluative language that goes beyond factual description. - “for the average hardworking legal U.S. citizen doing everything right, it’s a disgusting disservice” – emotionally charged framing that implicitly contrasts ‘legal U.S. citizens’ with the (largely immigrant) fraud suspects. - “state agencies were 'cowering in fear' over being called racist” – vivid, pejorative description of officials’ behavior. - “the Somali vote is very monolithic, votes Democrat” – broad generalization about a whole ethnic group’s political behavior. These choices frame the story in a way that encourages moral condemnation and group-level suspicion rather than neutral analysis.
Replace “exploding Somali community” with neutral demographic language such as “rapidly growing Somali community” or “large Somali community.”
Describe actions factually, e.g., “some individuals accused investigators of racism” instead of “used race as a cudgel.”
Rephrase “cowering in fear” to “were concerned about being labeled racist” or “were cautious due to potential racism accusations,” unless there is direct, attributed evidence for the stronger wording.
Avoid broad political generalizations like “the Somali vote is very monolithic”; instead, cite specific election data and note variation within the community if available.
Drawing broad conclusions about a group or phenomenon from limited or specific cases.
Passages that risk overgeneralizing include: - “Rumors and reports of fraud in Minneapolis, primarily within the city’s exploding Somali community, have been circulating for at least a decade…” – implies a long-standing, community-centered fraud problem without specifying scope or proportion. - “Fraud prosecutions disproportionately affected one community simply because that’s where significant fraud was uncovered” – asserts a causal explanation for the disparity without presenting underlying data. - “the Somali vote is very monolithic, votes Democrat” – treats a diverse ethnic community as politically uniform. These statements extrapolate from specific fraud cases and political patterns to broad claims about the Somali community and its political behavior.
Qualify claims with data or clear limits, e.g., “Several high-profile fraud cases have involved Somali-run organizations” instead of implying community-wide involvement.
Support claims about disproportionate prosecutions with statistics and, if possible, independent analysis of why the disparity exists.
Replace “very monolithic, votes Democrat” with data-driven phrasing such as “exit polls and precinct data suggest a strong Democratic lean among Somali voters, though not all vote the same way.”
Using emotionally charged scenarios or language to persuade rather than relying on evidence and reasoning.
The article repeatedly invokes emotional reactions: - “For the average hardworking legal U.S. citizen doing everything right, it’s a disgusting disservice…knowing there’s such blatant disregard for the value of that dollar.” - “fraud becomes a low-risk, high-reward enterprise” – evocative framing of moral outrage. - “taxpayers lost billions, and the vulnerable communities the programs were meant to serve suffered most” – a serious point, but presented in a way that heightens indignation without detailed evidence. While emotional impact is natural in reporting on fraud, the emphasis on disgust, emboldenment, and betrayal is not balanced with equivalent detail on evidence, numbers, and countervailing perspectives.
Pair emotionally resonant statements with concrete data (e.g., specific loss amounts, number of affected families, audit findings) and clear sourcing.
Attribute value-laden characterizations explicitly to speakers and balance them with neutral narration, e.g., “Koran described it as ‘a disgusting disservice,’ saying that…”
Add context on systemic oversight failures and structural issues, not only moral failings of individuals, to reduce reliance on emotional framing.
Reducing a complex issue to a single cause or a small set of causes, ignoring other relevant factors.
The article strongly emphasizes one main explanatory theme: fear of being labeled racist and political dependence on Somali votes as the key reasons fraud persisted: - “accusations of racism repeatedly used to deflect scrutiny, intimidate investigators and stall accountability.” - “state agencies were 'cowering in fear' over being called racist” - “politicians in Minnesota understand that it is difficult to win elections without the support of the Somali community.” Other potential factors—such as bureaucratic capacity, federal/state regulatory design, resource constraints, internal agency culture, or broader oversight failures—are mentioned only briefly (e.g., “Investigators simply lack the resources to chase every case”) and not explored in depth. This creates a narrative where racism accusations and electoral politics are portrayed as the dominant or near-exclusive causes.
Explicitly acknowledge and explore additional factors that may have contributed to the fraud’s scale, such as staffing levels, audit procedures, federal program rules, and prior oversight history.
Clarify that fear of racism accusations and political calculations are part of a broader set of causes, not the sole explanation.
Include expert or academic perspectives on systemic fraud in social programs to provide a more multi-causal analysis.
Presenting information in a way that reinforces a pre-existing narrative, often by repeating similar claims from aligned sources without critical examination.
Multiple aligned conservative sources (Fox News Digital, Center of the American Experiment, Townhall, Republican lawmakers) are quoted reinforcing the same storyline: that accusations of racism suppressed scrutiny and enabled massive fraud. Examples: - “The whole story kind of died under these accusations that people were being racist,” (Glahn) - “Fraudsters knew the issue of race and racism was something they could use as a cudgel…” (Teirab) - “In newsrooms, they’re told, ‘We can’t run that because we’re going to be accused of being racist,’” (Grage) - “state agencies were 'cowering in fear' over being called racist” (Glahn) These claims are largely presented without systematic evidence (e.g., internal memos, documented editorial decisions, or comprehensive audits of media coverage) and without voices that might challenge or nuance this interpretation. The repetition of similar claims from ideologically similar sources can create an availability cascade, making the explanation feel more certain than the evidence warrants.
Seek and include perspectives from non-partisan experts (e.g., legislative auditors, academic researchers) on the role of racism accusations vs. other factors in oversight failures.
Provide concrete documentary evidence where possible (e.g., excerpts from the legislative auditor’s report, internal emails, or court records) rather than relying mainly on aligned commentary.
Include any available counterarguments or alternative explanations from media organizations, Democratic officials, or independent analysts, and present them fairly.
Structuring the narrative in a way that can lead readers to infer broader guilt or intent than is directly supported by the evidence presented.
The article’s structure repeatedly links: - “exploding Somali community” - “fraud in Minneapolis, primarily within the city’s exploding Somali community” - “fraud prosecutions disproportionately affected one community” - “the Somali vote is very monolithic, votes Democrat” This framing can lead readers to infer that the Somali community as a whole is both a primary source of fraud and a political bloc that protects fraud through accusations of racism. Yet the article does not distinguish clearly between: - Individuals and organizations charged or convicted of fraud. - Ordinary Somali residents who had no involvement. - Somali leaders who may have opposed fraud. The lack of explicit differentiation risks stigmatizing the broader community.
Clearly separate discussion of specific individuals/organizations accused or convicted of fraud from discussion of the Somali community as a whole.
Add explicit statements such as: “The vast majority of Somali Minnesotans were not involved in these schemes, and many rely on these programs legitimately.”
Include any available examples of Somali community members or leaders who supported investigations or called for accountability.
Avoid repeatedly pairing community identity with fraud without proportional context and data.
Presenting assertions without sufficient evidence or sourcing to verify them.
Several strong claims are made with little or no direct evidence in the text: - “Rumors and reports of fraud in Minneapolis…have been circulating for at least a decade” – no specific reports or dates are cited. - “criticism of the fraud has been largely dismissed by elected Democrats as 'racist'” – no specific statements or examples from named Democrats are provided. - “In newsrooms, they’re told, ‘We can’t run that because we’re going to be accused of being racist’” – based on one commentator’s account, with no corroborating documentation or quotes from editors. - “politicians in Minnesota understand that it is difficult to win elections without the support of the Somali community” and “the Somali vote is very monolithic, votes Democrat” – no election data or studies are cited. These claims may be partially true, but the article does not provide enough evidence for readers to independently assess them.
Cite specific examples (dates, outlets, quotes) where Democratic officials publicly dismissed fraud concerns as racist, or clarify that this is the perception of the quoted sources rather than a documented pattern.
Provide links or references to the legislative auditor’s report and quote relevant sections directly, especially where it discusses the impact of racism accusations on agency behavior.
Support claims about newsroom decisions with on-the-record statements from editors or internal documents, or clearly label them as anecdotal accounts from one commentator.
Include election data or academic analyses to substantiate claims about the political influence and voting patterns of the Somali community.
- 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.