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!
Palestinians / Palestinian victims and families
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 emotionally loaded or evaluative wording that implicitly takes a side.
1) Title: "Israel kills 16-year-old Palestinian at ‘point-blank’ range in West Bank" – the headline adopts the most incriminating framing ("point-blank") from one side’s account without qualification. 2) "claims that have turned out to be false most of the time" – this is a sweeping negative characterisation of Israeli military statements without data or sourcing. 3) "the Hamas-led attack that led to a brutal Israeli response" – "brutal" is an evaluative term rather than a neutral descriptor. 4) "showing how little regard the Israeli army has for Palestinian lives" – this is a broad moral judgment about the entire army, presented via a quote but not balanced with any alternative framing. 5) "Palestinian prisoners have routinely been tortured, sexually abused and even killed in custody" – "routinely" is a strong generalisation that implies systemic, near-universal practice without specifying scope, time frame, or sources.
Headline: Change to a more neutral, attributed form, e.g. "Palestinian teenager killed during Israeli raid in West Bank; video appears to show close-range shooting" or "...; Palestinians allege point-blank shooting".
Replace "claims that have turned out to be false most of the time" with a sourced, quantified statement, e.g. "Human rights groups have documented multiple cases where Israeli military accounts were later contradicted by video or forensic evidence" and cite specific reports.
Change "brutal Israeli response" to a more descriptive, sourced phrase, e.g. "a large-scale Israeli military response that has killed X people, according to [source]".
When quoting "how little regard the Israeli army has for Palestinian lives", clearly attribute and contextualise: "The family said they believe the video shows 'how little regard...'" and add that this is their perception, not an established fact.
Qualify "routinely" with data and sources, e.g. "Rights groups including [names] have documented numerous cases of torture, sexual abuse and deaths in custody" and, if available, provide numbers and time frames.
Presenting one side’s narrative in detail while minimising, undermining, or cursorily presenting the other side’s perspective.
The article gives extensive space to Palestinian witnesses, family members, and Al Jazeera’s correspondent, including detailed descriptions of alleged extrajudicial killings and denial of medical access. The Israeli military’s account is summarised briefly and then immediately undercut: "claims that have turned out to be false most of the time." No Israeli spokesperson is quoted directly, no independent verification of either side’s claims is presented, and no context is given for how often such claims are confirmed or disproved. The broader context section heavily emphasises alleged Israeli abuses (torture, sexual abuse, killings in custody, settlement approvals, genocide accusations) without including any Israeli responses, denials, or legal arguments, nor any mention of attacks by Palestinian armed groups in the West Bank during the same period.
Include direct quotes from an Israeli military or government spokesperson responding to the specific incidents in Qabatiya and Silat al-Harithiya, and to the broader allegations (torture, deaths in custody, settlement expansion).
Add independent or third-party assessments (e.g. from UN bodies, international NGOs, or forensic experts) that evaluate both Palestinian and Israeli claims about the shootings and casualty figures.
When presenting serious allegations (torture, sexual abuse, genocide), include any official Israeli responses or legal positions, and clearly distinguish between allegations, ongoing investigations, and established findings.
Clarify which elements are confirmed facts (e.g. number of deaths, arrests) and which are contested narratives, and label them as such.
Assertions presented as fact without adequate evidence, sourcing, or qualification.
1) "claims that have turned out to be false most of the time" – no data, timeframe, or source is provided to support the assertion that Israeli claims of attacks are usually false. 2) "Palestinian prisoners have routinely been tortured, sexually abused and even killed in custody" – this is a very strong systemic claim without citation to specific reports, numbers, or time periods. 3) "in violation of the ceasefire signed in October" and "Israel has killed at least 400 Palestinians since the ceasefire pushed by US President Donald Trump came into effect" – the article asserts a ceasefire, its terms, and violations as fact without referencing the agreement, its conditions, or any monitoring body. 4) "Numerous rights organisations have dubbed Israeli action in Gaza as an act of genocide" – no organisations are named, and no distinction is made between legal findings and advocacy positions.
Provide specific sources and, where possible, statistics for the claim that Israeli accounts "have turned out to be false most of the time" (e.g. cite particular investigations by B’Tselem, Human Rights Watch, UN commissions, etc.). If such data is not available, soften the claim to: "Rights groups have documented multiple cases where Israeli accounts were later contradicted...".
For the statement about torture and abuse of prisoners, reference concrete reports (e.g. from UN Special Rapporteurs, reputable NGOs) and, if possible, include figures and dates. Alternatively, rephrase: "Rights organisations including [names] allege that Palestinian prisoners have been subjected to torture, sexual abuse and have died in custody."
When discussing ceasefire violations, name the agreement, its key terms, and the source that characterises specific actions as violations (e.g. UN, mediating states, monitoring groups).
Specify which rights organisations have called Israeli actions genocide, and clarify that these are allegations or legal arguments under review, not final judicial determinations (unless a court has ruled so).
Selecting data points that support one narrative while omitting relevant contextual information.
The article lists Palestinian casualties, arrests, and prisoner numbers in detail ("1,101, including 229 children", "Nearly 21,000 Palestinians have been arrested", "some 9,300 Palestinian prisoners"), and mentions torture and deaths in custody. However, it omits: - Any data on attacks by Palestinian armed groups in the West Bank during the same period. - Any Israeli casualty figures or security incidents that the Israeli side cites as justification for raids. - Any mention of the broader security context (e.g. frequency of armed clashes, shootings, or bombings in the area). This selective presentation reinforces one side’s victimhood narrative without situating it in the full conflict context.
Include data on Israeli casualties and attacks by Palestinian armed groups in the West Bank over the same timeframe, with clear sourcing, to provide fuller context.
Clarify that the casualty and arrest figures are from specific sources (e.g. Palestinian Health Ministry, Israeli authorities, UN OCHA) and, where possible, note how different sources’ figures compare.
Add context on the frequency of armed clashes or attacks in Jenin and surrounding areas, including any incidents attributed to Palestinian factions, to explain why Israeli forces conduct raids, while still scrutinising their conduct.
Reducing a complex situation to a simple, one-sided narrative.
Statements such as "a practice we’ve been seeing a lot in the occupied West Bank where Israeli forces kind of wait for the person to die" and "showing how little regard the Israeli army has for Palestinian lives" imply a simple, uniform pattern of deliberate killing and neglect across all or most operations. The article does not explore variations in incidents, internal Israeli investigations, or any constraints and risks faced by medical teams and soldiers in active combat zones.
Qualify generalisations with scope and evidence, e.g. "Palestinian and rights groups allege that in several recent cases, Israeli forces have delayed medical access, leading to deaths" and cite specific documented incidents.
Acknowledge complexity: note that some incidents are under investigation, that accounts differ, and that battlefield conditions can affect medical access, while still reporting credible allegations.
Avoid attributing a single motive (e.g. "wait for the person to die") to all or most actions unless supported by strong, systematic evidence.
Drawing broad conclusions about a group or pattern from limited or unspecified evidence.
1) "claims that have turned out to be false most of the time" generalises about Israeli military statements based on unspecified past cases. 2) "a practice we’ve been seeing a lot in the occupied West Bank where Israeli forces kind of wait for the person to die" generalises from some incidents to a widespread practice without data. 3) "showing how little regard the Israeli army has for Palestinian lives" extrapolates from one or a few videos to the moral character of the entire army.
Replace absolute or near-absolute phrases ("most of the time", "a lot", "the Israeli army has") with more precise, evidence-based wording, e.g. "in several documented cases" or "rights groups argue that some incidents suggest...".
Where broad claims are made, back them with statistics or systematic studies; if such evidence is not available, explicitly frame them as perceptions or allegations rather than facts.
Differentiate between individual incidents and systemic patterns, and clearly state when a pattern is alleged rather than conclusively established.
Using emotionally charged descriptions or imagery to persuade rather than to inform.
The article includes several emotionally powerful elements: a 16-year-old "walking towards what locals said was his home" before being shot "point-blank"; "refused to let anyone come close to the body for 40 minutes"; "seeing videos like that showing how little regard the Israeli army has for Palestinian lives"; descriptions of torture, sexual abuse, and deaths in custody; and repeated references to children killed. While such details may be factual and newsworthy, they are presented without balancing analytical context or verification, amplifying emotional impact over careful evaluation.
Retain human-impact details but pair them with clear sourcing, verification status, and, where possible, corroboration from independent observers.
Explicitly distinguish between verified facts, allegations, and emotional reactions from interviewees, e.g. "The family said they felt..." rather than letting such statements stand as implied fact.
Add analytical context (legal standards, rules of engagement, investigation status) alongside emotive descriptions to help readers evaluate the information rather than react solely emotionally.
Presenting information that reinforces a pre-existing narrative while downplaying or dismissing contrary information.
The article consistently reinforces a narrative of Israeli forces engaging in extrajudicial killings, systematic abuse of prisoners, and routine violation of ceasefires, while Israeli statements are briefly mentioned and then dismissed as usually false. No examples are given where Israeli accounts were confirmed, nor are any Palestinian claims scrutinised with similar scepticism. This pattern suggests selection and framing of information to fit a pre-existing critical narrative about Israel.
Apply similar levels of scrutiny to claims from all sides: note when Palestinian accounts are unverified or contested, and when Israeli accounts have been corroborated or disproved in past cases.
Include examples or data that complicate the dominant narrative (e.g. cases where investigations led to discipline of Israeli soldiers, or where Palestinian claims were later revised), if available.
Explicitly acknowledge uncertainties and contested facts, and avoid categorical statements where evidence is incomplete.
Presenting legal allegations or ongoing proceedings as if they were settled facts.
"Numerous rights organisations have dubbed Israeli action in Gaza as an act of genocide, and the International Criminal Court has issued an arrest warrant for Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu for war crimes." The juxtaposition can lead readers to infer that genocide has been legally established, whereas in reality these are advocacy positions and, in the ICC context, allegations under investigation, not final judgments.
Clarify that rights organisations have alleged or argued that Israeli actions meet the legal definition of genocide, and that these claims are contested.
Explain that ICC arrest warrants indicate that prosecutors believe there are reasonable grounds to suspect crimes, but they are not convictions and the legal process is ongoing.
Where possible, include a brief mention of Israel’s legal position or response to these allegations to avoid implying that the legal question is already settled.
Presenting timeframes and political actors in a way that may confuse or mislead readers about the context.
The article states: "The violence has played out in tandem with ongoing deadly Israeli attacks in Gaza, in violation of the ceasefire signed in October... Israel has killed at least 400 Palestinians since the ceasefire pushed by US President Donald Trump came into effect on October 10." The reference to a ceasefire "pushed by US President Donald Trump" in October is chronologically confusing given Trump’s term ended in January 2021. Without clarification, this framing can mislead readers about who brokered which agreement and when.
Verify the date and the identity of the US president involved in the referenced ceasefire. Correct the text if it is an error (e.g. if it should refer to a different president or a different year).
Clearly specify the year of the ceasefire and the nature of the agreement (e.g. "a US-brokered ceasefire in October 20XX"), and cite a source.
If the reference to Trump is accurate (e.g. referring to an earlier ceasefire), explain the timeline so readers understand how it relates to the current events.
- 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.