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!
Critic of Trump (Yassamin Ansari / pro-25th-Amendment-removal)
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 emotionally charged language or scenarios to influence readers rather than relying on balanced evidence.
“Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat from Arizona, boldly claimed that US President Donald Trump is ‘extremely mentally ill’ and should be removed from office immediately under the 25th Amendment.” “‘The president of the United States is extremely mentally ill and it’s putting all of our lives at risk. The 25th Amendment exists for a reason—we need to invoke it immediately,’ the Democrat wrote on X.”
Attribute the emotional language clearly as opinion and add neutral framing, e.g., “Yassamin Ansari, a Democrat from Arizona, alleged that President Donald Trump is ‘extremely mentally ill’ and argued that he should be removed from office under the 25th Amendment.”
Add context that this is a partisan statement and not a medical or legal determination, e.g., “Her comments reflect a political critique and are not based on any publicly disclosed medical evaluation.”
Balance the emotional claim with neutral or opposing perspectives, e.g., include responses from Trump’s representatives, legal scholars, or other lawmakers who disagree or provide a different interpretation of the 25th Amendment.
Presenting serious allegations or factual-sounding statements without sufficient evidence or sourcing.
“The president of the United States is extremely mentally ill and it’s putting all of our lives at risk.” The article repeats this claim without any evidence, expert opinion, or clarification that this is a political accusation rather than a verified medical assessment.
Explicitly label the statement as an allegation or opinion, e.g., “Ansari claimed, without providing medical evidence, that…”
Add information about the lack of supporting evidence, e.g., “No medical documentation or expert assessment was cited to support this characterization.”
Include expert or neutral commentary on the standards for invoking the 25th Amendment and whether such a claim alone would be sufficient, to ground the discussion in verifiable criteria.
Using wording that implicitly favors one side or frames a person or issue in a prejudicial way.
“boldly claimed that US President Donald Trump is ‘extremely mentally ill’…” The adverb “boldly” subtly valorizes the accuser’s stance and frames the claim as courageous rather than simply controversial or disputed.
Remove evaluative adverbs and keep the description neutral, e.g., “stated” or “said” instead of “boldly claimed.”
If the boldness is itself newsworthy, attribute that judgment to others, e.g., “Her comments, described by some commentators as ‘bold,’…”
Maintain a neutral tone throughout, avoiding adjectives or adverbs that praise or condemn either side unless clearly attributed to a source.
Leaving out important context or countervailing facts that are necessary for readers to form a balanced understanding.
The article presents Ansari’s call for removal under the 25th Amendment and briefly mentions Trump’s letter to the Norwegian Prime Minister but: - Does not quote or summarize Trump’s letter in sufficient detail to let readers judge the claim. - Does not include any response from Trump, his representatives, the White House, or other lawmakers. - Does not explain the legal and practical thresholds for invoking the 25th Amendment (e.g., role of the Vice President and Cabinet, historical usage, controversy around using it for perceived mental unfitness).
Provide more detail or direct quotations from Trump’s letter so readers can assess whether Ansari’s interpretation is reasonable.
Include responses or lack thereof from Trump’s team, other members of Congress, or legal experts to show how contested or supported Ansari’s position is.
Add a brief explanation of how the 25th Amendment is actually invoked, who must agree, and how rare or unprecedented such a move would be, to contextualize the call for removal.
Presenting one side’s claims prominently while giving little or no space to other relevant perspectives.
The article heavily features Ansari’s accusation and call for immediate invocation of the 25th Amendment, but: - Provides no direct quote or paraphrased defense from Trump or his allies. - Offers no legal or constitutional expert view on whether the cited behavior meets the standard for removal. - Does not mention any criticism of Ansari’s statement or note that it is controversial.
Include at least one response from Trump’s representatives, Republican lawmakers, or other stakeholders who disagree with or contextualize Ansari’s claim.
Add commentary from constitutional scholars on the typical interpretation and use of the 25th Amendment, including whether such political disagreements are normally grounds for invoking it.
Clearly indicate that this is one lawmaker’s position among many, e.g., “Ansari is among a small number of Democrats calling for…” or “Other lawmakers have rejected using the 25th Amendment in this context.”
Selecting a single piece of evidence and presenting it as sufficient proof, while ignoring broader context or complexity.
“And the reason behind Ansari's claims that Trump is ‘mentally ill’? She cited the POTUS' letter to Norwegian Prime Minister Jonas Gahr Store – where he suggested that not being awarded the Nobel Peace Prize has made him feel he no longer has an ‘obligation to think purely of peace,’ but ‘what is good and proper for US.’” The article presents this one letter as the sole cited basis for a sweeping mental health judgment, without exploring other behavior, context, or alternative interpretations of the letter.
Clarify that this is the specific example Ansari chose, e.g., “Ansari pointed to one recent letter…” rather than implying it is a comprehensive basis.
Provide more context about the letter (tone, full passage, reactions from others) so readers can see whether it is being interpreted selectively.
Note that diagnosing mental illness based on a single political statement is controversial and not a standard clinical practice, and, if relevant, include expert commentary on that point.
Emphasizing shocking or extreme aspects to attract attention, often at the expense of nuance or balance.
The headline and lead focus on a lawmaker calling for Trump’s removal under the 25th Amendment and labeling him “extremely mentally ill,” which is a dramatic and rare remedy. The article then provides minimal detail and ends with “(This is a developing story. Keep checking for more updates),” encouraging repeated clicks without yet offering substantive reporting.
Ensure the headline and lead reflect both the accusation and the limited, developing nature of the information, e.g., “Arizona Democrat calls for 25th Amendment review after Trump letter; experts say process is complex.”
Add more substantive content before publishing, or clearly label the piece as a brief or news alert with expectations about what information is and is not yet available.
Balance the dramatic claim with immediate context in the first paragraphs, such as legal hurdles and the rarity of 25th Amendment use, to reduce sensational framing.
Relying on the status of a person (e.g., lawmaker) to lend weight to a claim that is outside their expertise, without supporting evidence.
The article implicitly treats a city-level lawmaker’s assertion that Trump is “extremely mentally ill” as newsworthy evidence for invoking the 25th Amendment, even though she is not presented as a medical or constitutional expert and no expert support is cited.
Clarify the limits of the lawmaker’s expertise, e.g., “Ansari, who is not a mental health professional, described Trump as ‘extremely mentally ill.’”
Supplement her statement with commentary from qualified experts (mental health professionals, constitutional scholars) or note the ethical and professional constraints on diagnosing public figures from afar.
Frame the story as reporting on a political statement rather than as evidence of Trump’s mental state, e.g., “Ansari’s comments add to ongoing political criticism of Trump’s behavior…”
- 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.