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!
Detroit Lions
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 dramatic or exaggerated language to make the situation seem more extreme than the underlying facts strictly support.
Examples: 1) Title: "Lions playoff chances are teetering after loss to Rams drops Detroit to 8-6" – "teetering" is a dramatic verb for a 26% playoff chance, which is low but not near-zero. 2) "sending their already low playoff odds crashing even lower" – "crashing" is a strong, emotional term for a numerical drop from 39% to 26%. 3) "A loss in any one of those games could spell instant disaster." – "instant disaster" is a dramatic framing of a playoff-odds scenario. These phrases heighten the emotional impact beyond the neutral description of probabilities and standings.
Change the title to a more neutral phrasing, e.g.: "Lions playoff chances decline after loss to Rams drops Detroit to 8-6."
Replace "sending their already low playoff odds crashing even lower" with: "reducing their playoff odds from 39% to 26%."
Replace "A loss in any one of those games could spell instant disaster" with: "A loss in any one of those games would significantly reduce their playoff chances."
Using emotionally charged wording to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing strictly on neutral, factual description.
Examples: 1) "their margin of error is now razor-thin" – metaphorical, heightens tension. 2) "A loss in any one of those games could spell instant disaster." – evokes fear and urgency. 3) "the surging Bears also looms large as another potential roadblock" – "looms large" and "roadblock" add a sense of looming threat. These do not change the factual content but subtly push readers toward a more anxious or dramatic perception of the Lions’ situation.
Replace "their margin of error is now razor-thin" with: "their margin for error is now small."
Replace "could spell instant disaster" with: "would likely eliminate or severely reduce their playoff chances."
Replace "looms large as another potential roadblock" with: "is another important game that could affect their playoff chances."
Presenting a complex situation as simpler or more binary than it actually is.
1) "A loss in any one of those games could spell instant disaster. Even losing their non-divisional game against the Steelers next week lowers their odds to 9%." – This implies a near-binary outcome (win = alive, lose = disaster) while only one specific scenario (Steelers loss) is quantified. Other combinations of results and other teams’ outcomes are not discussed, which simplifies a multi-variable playoff picture. 2) "The Vikings game should be easy on paper" – reduces game difficulty to record/perception without acknowledging variance, matchups, or injuries. 3) "That would require Detroit to win out their games, the Packers to win against the Bears and lose in Week 17, and for the Bears to lose the rest of their schedule." – presented as *the* path, when it is one specific scenario; other, more complex paths may exist depending on tiebreakers and other NFC results.
Clarify that the Steelers-loss scenario is one modeled case, e.g.: "For example, The Athletic’s model suggests that losing to the Steelers next week would lower their odds to about 9%, though other results around the league could affect that number."
Qualify the Vikings statement, e.g.: "On paper, based on current records, the Vikings game appears more favorable, though upsets are common in the NFL."
Rephrase the division-path description to acknowledge it as one scenario, e.g.: "One potential path to winning the NFC North would require Detroit to win out, the Packers to beat the Bears and lose in Week 17, and the Bears to lose the rest of their schedule; other, more complex combinations also exist but are less likely."
Assertions presented as fact without supporting data or clear sourcing.
1) "The Vikings game should be easy on paper" – no supporting statistics (records, point differential, injuries, betting lines) are provided to justify calling it "easy". 2) "the Steelers pose a sneaky threat to Detroit" – "sneaky threat" is asserted without explanation (e.g., recent performance, defensive ranking, matchup issues). 3) "While they are still a dangerous team" (about the Packers) – "dangerous" is a qualitative label without supporting metrics (offensive efficiency, record in close games, etc.). These are relatively mild but still move from neutral description into unsupported evaluative language.
For the Vikings, add or replace with data: "Based on their current record and point differential, the Vikings project as a slightly weaker opponent, which makes that game look more favorable on paper."
For the Steelers, explain the threat: "the Steelers pose a threat to Detroit, particularly because of their top-10 defense and recent improvement on offense."
For the Packers, support the "dangerous" label: "While they are still a dangerous team, ranking in the top third of the league in offensive DVOA, they just lost star pass rusher Micah Parsons to an ACL injury."
Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain interpretations (e.g., crisis, chaos) without changing the underlying facts.
1) Section header: "NFC North is a bit of a mess this season" – frames the division as chaotic or disordered, though the subsequent description (Bears 10-4, Lions 8-6, Packers injuries) could also be framed as a competitive but structured race. 2) "There are a lot of moving parts at play in this chaotic playoff race." – "chaotic" frames the situation as disorderly rather than simply competitive and complex. These choices subtly steer readers toward viewing the division as unusually unstable rather than just competitive.
Change the header to a more neutral description, e.g.: "NFC North playoff picture is complex this season."
Replace "this chaotic playoff race" with: "this competitive and complex playoff race."
- 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.