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!
Prince William / Palace reform or accountability side
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 a headline that does not accurately reflect or is not supported by the article content.
Headline: "‘I’LL CLEAR TRUMP’: Epstein Girlfriend Maxwell Dangles Huge Clemency Deal In Bombshell Probe" Body: The body text does not mention Ghislaine Maxwell, Donald Trump, any clemency deal, or a bombshell probe. It instead focuses on Prince William, Prince Andrew, King Charles, and royal family dynamics. This is a strong mismatch between headline and content.
Change the headline to accurately reflect the content, e.g., "Royal Rift Over Possible Probe Into Prince Andrew Amid Epstein Fallout".
If the story is actually about Maxwell and Trump, replace the current body text with verified, sourced information about that topic.
Avoid using quotes like "I’LL CLEAR TRUMP" in the headline unless they are directly quoted in the article body with clear attribution and context.
Using dramatic, emotionally charged language to provoke strong reactions rather than inform.
Phrases such as "A deep royal divide is erupting", "fresh Epstein file fallout reignites global scrutiny", "disgraced royal", "Pressure is mounting on the Palace as the scandal refuses to fade", and "Bombshell Probe" in the title are all highly dramatic and not supported with specific facts, data, or quotes. The word "Watch." at the end functions as a teaser, emphasizing drama over information.
Replace "A deep royal divide is erupting" with a more neutral description, such as "Reports suggest differing views within the royal family over how to handle allegations involving Prince Andrew."
Change "fresh Epstein file fallout reignites global scrutiny" to something like "Recent releases of Epstein-related documents have renewed media attention on Prince Andrew."
Use "Prince Andrew" instead of "the disgraced royal" and specify the basis for that characterization (e.g., reference to his settlement or loss of duties) if relevant.
Remove or contextualize "Bombshell" and similar hype terms, focusing instead on verifiable developments.
Replace "Watch." with a clear description of what the reader/viewer will see, e.g., "See our full report for details and expert commentary."
Presenting claims without evidence, sourcing, or verifiable support.
Statements such as "claims surface that Prince William would allow a criminal probe into Andrew if he were king" and "Insiders say King Charles fears a formal investigation could seriously damage the monarchy’s stability" are presented without any named sources, documents, or corroboration. "Andrew’s sudden late-night move to a remote Sandringham cottage has intensified speculation" and "Pressure is mounting on the Palace" are also vague and do not specify who is speculating or what concrete pressures exist.
Attribute claims to specific, verifiable sources (e.g., named officials, public statements, reputable reports) or clearly label them as unconfirmed speculation.
Provide context for "claims surface" by indicating where they surfaced (e.g., in which publication, interview, or official document).
Clarify who the "insiders" are, or state explicitly that the sources requested anonymity and explain why, while also indicating their proximity to the matter.
Replace vague phrases like "intensified speculation" and "pressure is mounting" with concrete details: who is speculating, what actions or statements demonstrate pressure, and from which groups (public, media, political figures, etc.).
Relying on unnamed sources without sufficient justification or corroboration.
The phrase "Insiders say King Charles fears a formal investigation could seriously damage the monarchy’s stability" relies on unnamed "insiders" with no explanation of their role, credibility, or why anonymity is necessary.
Identify the type of insider (e.g., "a senior palace official", "a former royal adviser") and explain why they requested anonymity.
Corroborate the claim with additional evidence, such as public statements, documented actions, or multiple independent sources.
If anonymity cannot be justified or corroboration is not available, rephrase to make clear that this is unverified, e.g., "According to one person who claims to have knowledge of palace discussions, King Charles may be concerned..."
Using emotionally charged wording to influence readers’ feelings rather than presenting balanced facts.
Terms like "deep royal divide", "disgraced royal", and "fears a formal investigation could seriously damage the monarchy’s stability" are framed to evoke concern, scandal, and drama without providing detailed factual backing. "Pressure is mounting on the Palace as the scandal refuses to fade" is also framed to heighten a sense of ongoing crisis.
Use neutral descriptors such as "There are reported disagreements within the royal family" instead of "deep royal divide is erupting."
Explain why Prince Andrew is controversial with specific, factual references (e.g., legal settlements, loss of titles) instead of labeling him simply as "disgraced".
Quantify or specify the nature of any "pressure" (e.g., number of petitions, official inquiries, public opinion polls) rather than relying on emotive generalizations.
Leaving out essential context that would allow readers to fully understand the situation.
The article mentions "fresh Epstein file fallout" and "claims" about Prince William and King Charles but provides no details about what the new files contain, what specific claims are being made, or any legal or historical context about previous investigations into Prince Andrew. The headline references Maxwell and Trump, but the body omits any information about them, which is a major contextual gap.
Summarize what the "fresh Epstein files" are, who released them, and what they specifically say about Prince Andrew or others.
Provide background on previous investigations, legal actions, or official statements regarding Prince Andrew and the royal family’s response.
If Maxwell and Trump are relevant, include clear, sourced information about their connection to the current developments; if not, remove them from the headline.
Clarify the timeline and significance of Andrew’s move to Sandringham (e.g., when it happened, whether it is unusual, and how it relates to any official actions).
Using exaggerated or misleading elements to entice clicks or views rather than accurately representing the content.
The headline uses "I’LL CLEAR TRUMP", "Huge Clemency Deal", and "Bombshell Probe" to attract attention, but the body text does not discuss any of these elements. The final word "Watch." suggests the primary goal is to drive video views rather than provide substantive written information.
Ensure the headline accurately summarizes the main verified content of the piece instead of using unrelated high-profile names and dramatic phrases.
Replace "Watch." with a brief, informative description of what the viewer will see and learn.
Avoid using terms like "bombshell" or "huge" unless they are clearly defined and supported by the content.
Reducing a complex situation to a simplistic narrative that omits nuance.
The text frames the situation as a "deep royal divide" and suggests a straightforward conflict between Prince William’s supposed willingness to allow a probe and King Charles’s alleged fear for the monarchy’s stability, without acknowledging the legal, constitutional, political, and institutional complexities involved.
Acknowledge that decisions about criminal probes involve law enforcement and judicial authorities, not just the personal preferences of royal family members.
Include mention of other relevant actors (e.g., government, prosecutors, victims’ lawyers) and legal constraints.
Present multiple plausible interpretations of the reported actions and concerns, rather than a single, dramatic conflict narrative.
- 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.