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!
Savannah Guthrie and family
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 the content of the article.
Headline: "Newly Released Epstein Videos Suggest Victims Were Forced Into Disturbing 'Auditions'". Body: The content is entirely about Savannah Guthrie’s missing mother and a criminal investigation in Arizona, with no mention of Epstein, videos, or victims. This is a clear mismatch between headline and article content.
Replace the headline with one that accurately reflects the article content, e.g., "Savannah Guthrie Issues Plea as Search for Missing Mother Becomes Criminal Investigation".
Remove any reference to Epstein or unrelated topics from the headline unless the body is actually about that subject.
Ensure editorial checks require that headlines be based on and consistent with the verified facts in the article body.
Using sensational or provocative headlines primarily to attract clicks, not to inform accurately.
The Epstein-related headline is highly provocative and emotionally charged, but the article body does not discuss Epstein at all. This exploits public interest in a notorious case to drive attention to unrelated content.
Avoid using names or topics with high emotional or scandal value (like Epstein) unless they are directly and substantively covered in the article.
Adopt internal guidelines that headlines must be supported by at least one clearly presented, sourced fact in the body.
If the intent was to publish an Epstein-related story, ensure the correct body text is attached; otherwise, correct the headline immediately and add a note about the correction.
Exaggerating or dramatizing aspects of a story to provoke strong emotional reactions.
Phrases such as "heartfelt public plea", "escalates into a major criminal investigation", and the emphasis on "possible ransom letter" heighten drama without providing proportional factual detail (e.g., what makes it a "major" investigation, what is known about the letter).
Replace emotionally loaded phrases with neutral descriptions, e.g., "Savannah Guthrie released a public statement" instead of "heartfelt public plea".
Explain what specifically qualifies it as a "major" criminal investigation (e.g., involvement of federal agencies, scale of resources) or omit the qualifier.
Describe the "possible ransom letter" in more precise, sourced terms (e.g., "a letter that investigators are examining as a potential ransom note").
Leaving out important context or details that are necessary for a balanced understanding.
The article mentions a "possible ransom letter" but provides no details on its authenticity, source, or law enforcement assessment. It notes a "major criminal investigation" but gives no criteria or comparative context. It also does not specify sources beyond generic references to "investigators" and "Sheriff Chris Nanos" (no quotes, dates, or agencies beyond "federal agents").
Clarify what is known and unknown about the ransom letter, including whether law enforcement considers it credible and how they obtained it.
Specify what makes the investigation "major" (e.g., number of officers involved, multi-agency task force) or avoid the label.
Provide clear sourcing: when and where Sheriff Chris Nanos made the statements, and which federal agencies are involved.
Add any relevant background on the disappearance timeline and prior search efforts to give readers context.
Using emotionally charged or value-laden wording that nudges readers toward a particular emotional reaction or judgment.
Examples include: "heartfelt public plea", "escalates into a major criminal investigation", "intensive search". These terms emphasize emotional intensity and seriousness without neutral qualifiers or comparative context.
Use neutral descriptors such as "public statement" or "video message" instead of "heartfelt public plea" unless supported by direct quotes describing the tone.
Replace "escalates into a major criminal investigation" with a factual description like "authorities have opened a criminal investigation".
Quantify "intensive search" (e.g., "search involving drones, dogs, and X number of officers") instead of relying on subjective adjectives.
Presenting one perspective more prominently or sympathetically than others without sufficient justification or context.
The article focuses on Savannah Guthrie’s family perspective and emotional plea, while law enforcement’s role is summarized briefly and without detail. There is no mention of any alternative explanations, investigative constraints, or independent verification of claims (e.g., about forced entry).
Include more detailed, direct quotes or statements from law enforcement about the status of the investigation, evidence, and next steps.
Clarify which claims are from the family and which are from investigators, and indicate what has been independently verified.
If available, add context about standard procedures in similar missing-person cases to balance emotional elements with procedural facts.
Relying on emotional triggers rather than evidence to persuade or engage readers.
The focus on a "heartfelt public plea" and the age of the missing mother ("84-year-old") are presented in a way that primarily evokes sympathy and concern, with limited factual depth. The possible ransom letter is mentioned in a way that heightens fear and drama without detail.
Maintain mention of relevant facts (such as age) but pair them with concrete, sourced information about the investigation.
Balance emotional elements (family plea) with clear, factual reporting on what is known, what is unknown, and what authorities are doing.
Avoid highlighting the ransom angle without providing law enforcement’s assessment of its credibility.
Introducing irrelevant or promotional information that distracts from the main news content.
The paragraph: "Times Entertainment is the Times of India's global entertainment vertical. Get your daily dose of news from Hollywood, British cinema, Korean-dramas and more. Tune in for all the celebrity news, buzzing grapevine, politicians vs. celebs clash and latest gossip here." is promotional and unrelated to the missing-person case.
Remove or clearly separate promotional copy from the news article (e.g., place it in a sidebar or footer labeled as promotion).
If branding is necessary, keep it minimal and non-promotional, such as a simple byline or section label.
Ensure that news articles focus on factual reporting and do not embed marketing language in the main text.
Reducing a complex situation to a few brief statements that may omit important nuance.
The disappearance, possible ransom letter, and multi-agency investigation are compressed into a few sentences with no discussion of investigative complexity, alternative hypotheses, or procedural details. This can give a misleadingly straightforward picture of a likely complex case.
Add brief context on typical steps in a missing-person criminal investigation (e.g., evidence collection, interviews, public alerts).
Clarify that the situation is evolving and that some details are preliminary or subject to change as more information emerges.
Avoid implying that the presence of a ransom letter or forced entry fully explains the situation without acknowledging other possibilities.
- 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.