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!
EU / Kaja Kallas position
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 mainly one side’s perspective without comparable representation or response from other key sides.
The entire article is built around Kaja Kallas’s comments. Russia is discussed extensively as an actor that must be pressured and constrained, but there is no Russian response, no Russian perspective, and no independent expert context. Ukraine is spoken about in the third person ("უკრაინელებზე იყო დიდი ზეწოლა..."), but no Ukrainian official or citizen is quoted directly. The structure is: short intro + long block of Kallas quotes. No alternative views, no fact-checking, no contextualization of her claims.
Add a response or previously stated position from Russian officials regarding negotiations, military spending, and accusations of aggression, clearly labeled as such.
Include a Ukrainian government or expert comment on whether there has been "დიდი ზეწოლა" for painful concessions and how they view the European and US roles.
Add neutral background context (e.g., references to international reports, historical data, or prior negotiations) to situate Kallas’s statements rather than presenting them as the only frame.
Relying on a single source or side, which can skew perception even if quotes are accurate.
Only Kaja Kallas is cited as a source. All evaluative and causal statements about Russia’s behavior, Ukraine’s readiness for concessions, and the role of the US vs. Europe come from her: - "პრობლემა იმაშია, რომ უკრაინელებზე იყო დიდი ზეწოლა..." - "ევროპის მიდგომაა მეტი ზეწოლა რუსეთზე..." - "ბოლო 100 წელიწადში რუსეთი, სულ მცირე, 19 ქვეყანას დაესხა თავს..." - "ცხადია, რუსები ხედავენ და ფიქრობენ – რატომ უნდა ვესაუბროთ ევროპელებს..."
Supplement Kallas’s statements with at least one independent expert or research institution providing data on Russian military interventions and on negotiation dynamics.
Indicate clearly that the description of Russian motives ("რუსები ხედავენ და ფიქრობენ") is Kallas’s interpretation, not an established fact, and, if possible, contrast it with Russian official rhetoric.
Clarify that the characterization of pressure on Ukraine for concessions is an assessment by Kallas, and, if available, add corroborating or dissenting views from Ukrainian or US/EU officials.
Presenting factual-sounding assertions without evidence or sourcing.
Several strong empirical claims are made without any supporting data or reference: 1) "ბოლო 100 წელიწადში რუსეთი, სულ მცირე, 19 ქვეყანას დაესხა თავს. ზოგიერთ მათგანს სამჯერ ან ოთხჯერ. ამ ქვეყნებიდან არცერთი არასდროს დასხმია თავს რუსეთს." – This is a precise-sounding historical claim (19 countries, some 3–4 times, none ever attacked Russia) but no source or list is provided. 2) "უკრაინელებზე იყო დიდი ზეწოლა, რათა ისინი ძალიან მტკივნეულ დათმობებზე წასულიყვნენ..." – The existence and scale of "დიდი ზეწოლა" from unspecified actors is asserted without evidence or identification of who exerted the pressure. 3) "რაც ვნახეთ, არის, რომ თქვენ შეგიძლიათ, შეთანხმდეთ რაზეც გსურთ, მაგრამ ევროპა ამას თუ არ თანხმდება, მაშინ ეს არ მუშაობს." – This is a broad generalization about the necessity of European approval for any agreement, again without concrete examples or data.
For the "19 countries" claim, either provide a source (e.g., a study or official list) or soften the wording: "კაია კალასის თქმით, მისი შეფასებით, ბოლო 100 წელიწადში რუსეთი არაერთ ქვეყანას დაესხა თავს" and explicitly attribute it as her claim.
Specify who allegedly exerted "დიდი ზეწოლა" on Ukraine (e.g., which states or institutions) and, if no verifiable evidence is available, rephrase as: "კალასის შეფასებით, უკრაინაზე ხორციელდებოდა ზეწოლა...".
For the statement about European approval being necessary, add concrete examples (e.g., previous negotiation frameworks) or reframe as opinion: "მისი თქმით, პრაქტიკამ აჩვენა, რომ..." and note that this is a political assessment, not a proven rule.
Reducing complex geopolitical and historical issues to overly simple causal stories or dichotomies.
The conflict dynamics and negotiation processes are framed in relatively binary terms: - "პრობლემა იმაშია, რომ უკრაინელებზე იყო დიდი ზეწოლა... ეს კი, რეალურად ფოკუსის გადატანაა რეალური პრობლემიდან" – implies a single "real problem" and suggests that focusing on Ukrainian concessions is merely a distraction, without acknowledging the multiplicity of factors and actors. - "თქვენ შეგიძლიათ, შეთანხმდეთ რაზეც გსურთ, მაგრამ ევროპა ამას თუ არ თანხმდება, მაშინ ეს არ მუშაობს" – suggests that European approval is the decisive factor for any agreement, downplaying roles of other actors (e.g., UN, US, regional states, Ukraine itself).
Acknowledge complexity by adding qualifiers: e.g., "კალასის აზრით, ერთ-ერთი მთავარი პრობლემა ის არის, რომ..." instead of implying a single "real" problem.
Clarify that European approval is one important factor among others: "მისი თქმით, ევროპული თანხმობა ხშირად გადამწყვეტი აღმოჩნდა, თუმცა სხვა აქტორების როლიც მნიშვნელოვანია."
Briefly mention other dimensions (security guarantees, internal Ukrainian politics, global power competition) to avoid a purely one-factor explanation.
Using emotionally charged framing to influence readers’ attitudes rather than focusing solely on neutral description.
Some phrases are emotionally loaded and can shape reader perception beyond neutral reporting: - "ძალიან მტკივნეულ დათმობებზე" – emphasizes pain and sacrifice, evoking sympathy for Ukraine. - "მაქსიმალისტური მოთხოვნების დაკმაყოფილება" – characterizes the other side’s (implicitly US-related or Russian expectations) stance as "maximalist" without defining criteria. - References to "დანაშაულებისთვის, რომლებიც მათ ჩაიდინეს" without specifying which crimes, legal findings, or investigations, evoke moral condemnation without detail.
Retain emotional quotes but clearly attribute them and, where possible, balance with neutral language: e.g., "კალასის თქმით, უკრაინას სთხოვენ 'ძალიან მტკივნეულ დათმობებს'" and then explain concretely what types of concessions are meant.
Define or contextualize "მაქსიმალისტური მოთხოვნები" (e.g., list examples) or rephrase as: "მისი შეფასებით, მოთხოვნები ზედმეტად ამბიციურია".
When mentioning "დანაშაულები", specify whether this refers to alleged war crimes under investigation by international bodies, and, if possible, cite relevant reports or proceedings.
Drawing broad conclusions about an actor’s behavior or motives from limited or unspecified evidence.
The statement: "ბოლო 100 წელიწადში რუსეთი, სულ მცირე, 19 ქვეყანას დაესხა თავს... ამ ქვეყნებიდან არცერთი არასდროს დასხმია თავს რუსეთს. კითხვა ასეთია – როგორც უზრუნველყოფთ, რომ ეს ომი არ გაგრძელდება ან სხვაგან არ გადაინაცვლებს?" implicitly generalizes from a set of historical events to a broad conclusion that Russia will continue aggression elsewhere unless constrained. While this may be a plausible concern, the article does not present the underlying evidence or discuss counterexamples, diplomatic episodes, or changes in regimes and contexts.
Frame this as a concern or risk assessment rather than an inevitable pattern: "კალასის თქმით, მისი აზრით, ისტორიული გამოცდილება აჩენს შიშს, რომ...".
Add nuance by noting that interpretations of these historical events differ and that some analysts dispute the exact number or characterization of these conflicts.
Include at least a brief mention that future behavior depends on multiple factors (domestic politics, international constraints, economic conditions), not solely on past interventions.
Constructing a coherent story that links events and motives in a simple narrative, potentially overstating causality or coherence.
The article, via Kallas’s quotes, constructs a narrative: Russia has repeatedly attacked many countries; therefore, unless its military and nuclear capabilities are limited and it is held accountable, the war will continue or spread; Europe must therefore increase pressure and be central to any agreement. This is a clear, linear story that may underrepresent uncertainties, alternative explanations, and other actors’ roles.
Explicitly mark this as Kallas’s narrative or interpretation: "კალასის ხედვით, ისტორიული გამოცდილება და მიმდინარე ომი ერთიან სურათად იკვრება, სადაც...".
Add a short paragraph from the journalist summarizing that there are differing views on how best to achieve peace (e.g., some advocate earlier negotiations, others more military support, etc.).
Where possible, introduce data or expert analysis that either supports or complicates this narrative, making clear that the situation is contested and complex.
- 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.