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!
Prosecution / Investigators
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 dramatic, emotionally charged language to provoke interest or shock rather than inform.
Phrases such as "inner circle is now under intense scrutiny", "dramatic arrest", "raising new questions about what he knows, and why prosecutors are moving fast", and "the silence around this case is growing louder" are all highly dramatic and suggest intrigue and urgency without providing substantive detail. The promotional part: "buzzing grapevine, politicians vs. celebs clash and latest gossip" also frames the outlet as focused on sensational content.
Replace emotionally charged phrases with neutral descriptions, e.g., change "inner circle is now under intense scrutiny" to "associates are being questioned by investigators".
Change "dramatic arrest" to a factual description such as "Neo Langston was arrested after failing to appear as a witness".
Remove metaphorical language like "the silence around this case is growing louder" and instead state what is actually unknown or not publicly disclosed.
In the promotional section, tone down words like "buzzing grapevine" and "latest gossip" to "entertainment news and updates" if the goal is objective reporting.
Using framing that suggests more concrete revelations or drama than the text actually provides.
The text strongly implies major revelations: "raising new questions about what he knows, and why prosecutors are moving fast" and "inner circle is now under intense scrutiny" but does not specify what questions, what evidence exists, or what actions prosecutors have actually taken beyond convening a grand jury.
Specify clearly what is known: what charges, if any, exist; what the grand jury is formally investigating; and what is documented in public records.
Avoid implying that Neo Langston "knows" something incriminating unless there is sourced evidence; instead say, for example, "prosecutors are seeking testimony from Neo Langston as part of the investigation".
Remove vague implications like "moving fast" unless supported by concrete timelines or official statements, and then attribute them (e.g., "according to court filings, prosecutors requested an expedited schedule").
Using wording designed to evoke fear, suspicion, or excitement rather than to convey facts.
Expressions like "inner circle is now under intense scrutiny" and "the silence around this case is growing louder" are crafted to evoke a sense of mystery and tension. The promotional language "buzzing grapevine" and "latest gossip" appeals to curiosity and voyeurism rather than information needs.
Focus on verifiable procedural facts (dates of hearings, nature of testimony, official statements) instead of mood-setting phrases.
Remove metaphorical and evocative language and replace it with straightforward descriptions of events.
If public concern or emotional impact is relevant, attribute it to sources (e.g., "fans on social media have expressed concern") rather than embedding it in the narrator’s voice.
Implying wrongdoing or hidden knowledge without providing supporting evidence or clear attribution.
The line "raising new questions about what he knows" implies that Neo Langston may be withholding important information or is implicated, but no evidence or source is provided. Similarly, "prosecutors are moving fast" is asserted without any concrete procedural detail or citation.
Attribute any claims about "new questions" to specific sources (e.g., investigators, legal experts, court documents) or remove them.
Clarify what is factually known about Neo Langston’s role: for example, "Neo Langston was called as a witness; authorities have not accused him of any crime" if that is accurate.
Provide concrete evidence for the pace of the investigation (dates, filings) or omit the characterization "moving fast".
Word choices that subtly frame individuals or sides in a negative or suspicious light.
Describing the group as an "inner circle" under "intense scrutiny" and highlighting a "dramatic arrest" frames D4vd and associates as secretive and suspect. The article does not balance this with any neutral or exculpatory context (e.g., presumption of innocence, lack of charges against Neo).
Use neutral terms like "associates" instead of "inner circle" unless the latter is a direct quote from a source.
Describe the arrest in procedural terms without adjectives like "dramatic".
Include balancing information, such as the absence of formal charges against certain individuals, or statements from their legal representatives, if available.
Leaving out essential context that would allow readers to fairly assess the situation or each side.
The text mentions a grand jury, a body found in a Tesla, and an arrest for failing to appear, but omits: - Any response or statement from D4vd, Neo Langston, or their representatives. - Clarification of whether Neo is a suspect, a witness, or otherwise. - Any legal context about the grand jury process. This omission makes the prosecution/investigation side more salient and leaves the defense side largely voiceless.
Include statements or attempts to obtain comment from D4vd, Neo Langston, or their legal teams, and clearly report if they declined to comment.
Clarify Neo Langston’s legal status (witness, person of interest, suspect) based on official records.
Provide basic context on what a grand jury does and what stage the case is in, so readers can understand the significance of these developments.
Weaving sparse facts into a dramatic narrative that suggests coherence or causality not supported by evidence.
The sequence "dramatic arrest for failing to appear as a witness, raising new questions about what he knows, and why prosecutors are moving fast" constructs a story arc: refusal to appear → hidden knowledge → prosecutorial urgency. The text does not provide evidence that these elements are causally linked in the way implied.
Present each fact separately and clearly indicate what is known and what is not, avoiding narrative connectors that imply causation (e.g., "raising", "why prosecutors are moving fast").
If experts infer significance from these events, quote them directly and distinguish their analysis from factual reporting.
Avoid building a storyline around motives ("why prosecutors are moving fast") unless supported by explicit statements or documents.
- 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.