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!
Government/PRAGATI/Prime Minister Modi
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 value-laden, positive or promotional wording that implicitly endorses one side.
Examples include: - "Prime Minister’s flagship platform for Pro-Active Governance and Timely Implementation, PRAGATI, has marked a significant milestone..." - "PRAGATI has transformed governance by enabling real-time monitoring..." - "The platform exemplifies cooperative federalism..." - "instilled a strong culture of accountability" - "These interventions accelerated project execution and contributed to the augmentation of airport infrastructure, improvement in air connectivity and passenger handling capacity." - "has played a key role in fast-tracking civil aviation projects and strengthening India’s airport infrastructure across the country." These phrases present PRAGATI and the government’s role in a consistently positive, evaluative manner without neutral qualifiers or countervailing information.
Replace evaluative phrases with neutral descriptions, e.g., change "has transformed governance" to "is used for real-time monitoring and resolution of key infrastructure projects and public grievances."
Change "The platform exemplifies cooperative federalism" to "The platform brings together the Centre, States, and Union Ministries on a single digital interface, which the government describes as an example of cooperative federalism."
Change "instilled a strong culture of accountability" to "is intended to enhance accountability; officials report increased monitoring and follow-up on projects."
Change "has played a key role in fast-tracking civil aviation projects" to "has been used to monitor timelines and resolve some issues in civil aviation projects."
Leaving out relevant context, limitations, or counterpoints that would allow a more balanced understanding.
The article only highlights successes and positive outcomes: - It notes that "all the projects have been commissioned" and that issues were resolved, but does not mention any delays, cost overruns, environmental or social concerns, or criticisms related to the airports (e.g., land acquisition disputes, displacement, ecological impact). - It states that 51 of 53 issues were resolved but does not describe the nature of the unresolved issues or whether any resolutions were contested or partial. - No perspectives from affected local communities, independent experts, or opposition parties are included; only the government’s framing is presented. This creates a one-sided, overly positive picture of PRAGATI and the projects.
Add information on any documented challenges, such as delays, cost escalations, legal disputes, or environmental concerns associated with Navi Mumbai, Pakyong, and Mopa airports, if available.
Clarify the status of the two unresolved issues: what they concern, why they remain unresolved, and what steps are being taken.
Include perspectives from independent analysts or local stakeholders on the impact of these projects (economic benefits, environmental costs, social displacement, etc.).
Explicitly acknowledge that the article focuses on achievements and does not cover all aspects of the projects, including criticisms or ongoing challenges.
Presenting only one side of an issue or only positive aspects, without giving space to alternative views or potential downsides.
Throughout the article, only the government’s narrative is presented: - PRAGATI is described solely in terms of its benefits and successes. - There is no mention of any criticism of centralized, Prime Minister-led monitoring, concerns about federal balance, or questions about transparency and accountability. - No data is provided on projects that may have underperformed, faced serious delays, or had negative local impacts. This makes the piece function more like a government press release than a balanced news article.
Include at least one section summarizing known criticisms or concerns about PRAGATI or these specific aviation projects, citing credible sources.
Present data on both successes and shortcomings (e.g., projects that faced delays despite PRAGATI, or where local opposition was significant).
Quote or paraphrase views from non-governmental stakeholders (civil society groups, local residents, aviation experts) to balance the official narrative.
Clearly label the piece as a government communication or press release if that is its nature, so readers understand the perspective.
Assertions presented as fact without supporting evidence or clear sourcing.
Several strong claims are made without data or references: - "PRAGATI has transformed governance..." - "instilled a strong culture of accountability." - "These interventions accelerated project execution and contributed to the augmentation of airport infrastructure, improvement in air connectivity and passenger handling capacity." - "has played a key role in fast-tracking civil aviation projects and strengthening India’s airport infrastructure across the country." These statements attribute broad, positive outcomes directly to PRAGATI without showing comparative data (before/after), independent evaluations, or specific metrics.
Provide quantitative evidence (e.g., average project delay reduction, number of projects completed on time before vs. after PRAGATI, independent audit findings) to support claims of transformation and acceleration.
Qualify claims where evidence is limited, e.g., "Government officials state that PRAGATI has helped accelerate decision-making" instead of asserting it as an established fact.
Cite independent evaluations or reports, if available, to substantiate claims about accountability and fast-tracking.
Where evidence is not available, rephrase to avoid causal certainty, e.g., "PRAGATI is intended to strengthen accountability and may have contributed to faster project execution."
Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain aspects (usually positive or negative) to shape perception.
The article frames PRAGATI and the aviation projects exclusively in positive terms: - Emphasis on "significant milestone," "flagship platform," "strengthened accountability," "fast-tracking," and "strengthening India’s airport infrastructure." - The numerical data (e.g., "38 projects with a total investment of 90 thousand 978 crore rupees" and "51 issues have been resolved") is presented without comparative or contextual benchmarks, making the outcomes appear unambiguously impressive. - No mention of trade-offs (environmental, social, fiscal) or opportunity costs. This framing nudges readers to view PRAGATI as unequivocally beneficial.
Present both positive and negative or uncertain aspects of PRAGATI’s impact, including any documented controversies or mixed results.
Add comparative context for the numbers (e.g., what proportion of total aviation investment these projects represent, how resolution rates compare to non-PRAGATI projects).
Use more neutral descriptors instead of value-laden ones like "flagship" and "significant milestone," or attribute them clearly to the government (e.g., "described by the government as a flagship platform").
Explicitly note that the article focuses on achievements and does not cover all dimensions of the program.
Relying on the status or position of a person or institution to imply correctness or success, rather than providing evidence.
The article repeatedly emphasizes the Prime Minister’s direct involvement: - "Since its launch by Prime Minister Narendra Modi in 2015..." - "through direct Prime Ministerial review." - "three projects... have been reviewed by Prime Minister Narendra Modi under PRAGATI, and all the projects have been commissioned." The juxtaposition of PM review and project commissioning implies that the PM’s involvement is a key reason for success, without evidence that this causal link holds or that similar projects without PM review perform worse.
Separate descriptive facts about PM involvement from implied causal claims, e.g., "These projects were reviewed under PRAGATI, a platform chaired by the Prime Minister. All three have since been commissioned."
Provide data comparing outcomes of projects reviewed under PRAGATI vs. those not reviewed, to support or qualify any implied causal link.
Reduce emphasis on the PM’s role as a guarantee of success and focus on process details and measurable outcomes instead.
Clarify that correlation between PM review and project commissioning does not by itself prove causation.
Selecting only favorable data points while ignoring less favorable or contradictory information.
The article highlights: - 38 projects with a large total investment figure. - 3 specific projects that have been commissioned. - 51 out of 53 issues resolved. However, it does not mention: - Any projects that may have faced serious delays, cost overruns, or unresolved issues. - Any metrics where PRAGATI’s impact might be limited or unclear. - How these figures compare to overall performance in the sector or to projects not under PRAGATI. This selective presentation makes the program appear uniformly successful.
Include data on projects that faced significant challenges despite PRAGATI oversight, if such cases exist.
Provide sector-wide benchmarks (e.g., average resolution rates or commissioning times before PRAGATI) to contextualize the highlighted numbers.
Acknowledge that the article focuses on successful cases and does not represent the full distribution of outcomes.
If comprehensive data is unavailable, state this limitation explicitly and avoid implying that the highlighted examples are fully representative.
- 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.