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!
Rep. Jamie Raskin / Critics of Pam Bondi
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 exaggerated, dramatic language to provoke strong emotional reactions rather than inform.
Title: “‘You’re A Disgrace, Go Wipe…’: Raskin ROATS Pam Bondi After Her Shocking Epstein Case Response” Body: “unleashed a blistering attack,” “fiery congressional hearing,” “shocking cover-up,” “screamed in frustration,” “chaotic showdown,” “high-stakes battlefield of fury,” “one of the most explosive scandals in recent memory.”
Replace sensational verbs and metaphors with neutral descriptions, e.g., change “unleashed a blistering attack” to “criticized” or “strongly criticized.”
Change “fiery congressional hearing” to “contentious” or simply “congressional hearing.”
Remove or qualify phrases like “high-stakes battlefield of fury” and “one of the most explosive scandals in recent memory” unless supported by specific evidence and context.
Use direct quotes and factual descriptions of what was said and done instead of dramatic imagery.
Headline designed primarily to attract clicks through provocation and partial or exaggerated information.
“‘You’re A Disgrace, Go Wipe…’: Raskin ROATS Pam Bondi After Her Shocking Epstein Case Response” uses all caps slang (“ROATS”), an incomplete insult (“Go Wipe…”), and “Shocking Epstein Case Response” without explaining what was actually said or done.
Use a descriptive, factual headline such as: “Raskin Criticizes Bondi Over Handling of Epstein Files in Congressional Hearing.”
Avoid slang like “ROATS” and incomplete inflammatory quotes that are not explained in the article.
Summarize the substantive issue in the headline (e.g., alleged mishandling of Epstein files) rather than focusing on personal insults.
Relying on emotional language and imagery to persuade rather than presenting evidence and reasoning.
Phrases like “blistering attack,” “fiery congressional hearing,” “screamed in frustration,” “chaotic showdown,” “high-stakes battlefield of fury,” and “explosive scandals” are designed to evoke anger, outrage, and excitement without providing factual detail.
Describe the tone of the hearing with measured language (e.g., “raised voices,” “tense exchanges”) and back it up with specific quotes or actions.
Focus on what was actually said about the Epstein files, what decisions were made, and what evidence was discussed.
Limit emotional descriptors to those that are necessary and supported by observable facts, and attribute them (e.g., “according to several attendees, the hearing became tense…”).
Presenting serious allegations or characterizations without providing evidence or sourcing.
“condemning her handling of the Jeffrey Epstein files as a shocking cover-up” and “those involved in protecting Epstein’s associates” are serious accusations, but the article provides no details, documents, quotes, or sources to substantiate them.
Specify what actions or omissions by Bondi are alleged to constitute a “cover-up,” citing documents, testimony, or investigative findings.
Attribute the claim clearly: e.g., “Raskin alleged that Bondi’s office engaged in a cover-up by [specific action],” rather than stating it as fact.
Include Bondi’s response or defense to the allegations, and any independent assessments (e.g., from investigators, courts, or watchdog groups).
Use of loaded, judgmental wording that favors one side and disparages another.
The article repeatedly uses language that frames Raskin as righteous and Bondi as culpable: “unleashed a blistering attack,” “condemning her handling… as a shocking cover-up,” “calling her a ‘disgrace’,” “A-G screamed in frustration,” “demanding accountability from those involved in protecting Epstein’s associates.” Bondi is described only in negative, emotional terms, with no neutral or positive framing or explanation of her position.
Replace judgmental phrases with neutral descriptions, e.g., “Raskin criticized Bondi’s handling of the Epstein files, alleging that key information was withheld.”
Describe Bondi’s behavior factually (e.g., “raised her voice,” “disputed the allegations”) instead of “screamed in frustration,” unless directly quoted and sourced.
Avoid labeling language like “disgrace” except as a clearly attributed quote, and balance it with Bondi’s own statements or defense.
Presenting only one side’s perspective or focusing on one side’s claims without offering the other side’s response or independent context.
The article presents Raskin’s accusations and emotional framing but provides no direct quotes or explanations from Bondi, no legal or factual context about the Epstein files, and no independent analysis. Bondi is only depicted as “screamed in frustration,” with no substantive defense or explanation.
Include Bondi’s statements during the hearing, especially her response to the cover-up allegations.
Add context from official documents, prior investigations, or court records regarding the handling of the Epstein files.
Incorporate perspectives from neutral or independent observers (e.g., legal experts, nonpartisan watchdogs) to contextualize the dispute.
Balance the narrative by devoting comparable space to each side’s arguments and evidence.
Leaving out essential facts that are necessary to understand the issue objectively.
The article does not explain: - What specific “Epstein files” are at issue. - What Bondi’s role and legal responsibilities were. - What actions are alleged to be a “cover-up.” - What evidence Raskin presented. - Any procedural or legal outcomes of the hearing. Without this, readers cannot assess the seriousness or validity of the accusations.
Describe the nature of the Epstein files (e.g., type of documents, time period, jurisdiction).
Explain Bondi’s official role and authority over those files.
Detail the specific allegations made by Raskin, including any documents or testimony cited.
Report on any motions, rulings, or follow-up actions resulting from the hearing.
Clarify whether any independent investigations have corroborated or refuted the claims.
Framing an event primarily as a dramatic conflict to attract attention, potentially exaggerating its significance or contentiousness.
Phrases like “chaotic showdown,” “high-stakes battlefield of fury,” and “one of the most explosive scandals in recent memory” frame the hearing as a dramatic spectacle without evidence that it was unusually chaotic or historically significant compared to other high-profile hearings.
Describe the level of conflict with specific, verifiable details (e.g., number of interruptions, procedural disputes) instead of war metaphors.
Avoid broad, unsourced superlatives like “one of the most explosive scandals in recent memory” unless supported by data (e.g., public attention metrics, legal impact) and attributed to a source.
Focus on the substantive issues and outcomes rather than dramatizing interpersonal conflict.
Imposing a dramatic, coherent story arc (heroes vs. villains, battles, showdowns) on complex events, which can oversimplify and distort reality.
The article constructs a simple narrative: Raskin as the righteous accuser, Bondi as the disgraced official in a “high-stakes battlefield of fury.” It omits nuance, legal complexity, and multiple perspectives, reducing the hearing to a dramatic confrontation.
Present the hearing as a procedural event with multiple participants and viewpoints, not just a two-person showdown.
Include nuance about legal constraints, differing interpretations of the law, and institutional processes.
Avoid war/battle metaphors and instead structure the article around key issues, arguments, and evidence presented.
Presenting information in a way that strongly biases how readers interpret the event, by emphasizing certain aspects and language choices.
By emphasizing words like “disgrace,” “screamed,” “cover-up,” and “protecting Epstein’s associates,” the article frames Bondi as morally compromised and out of control, while framing Raskin as a force for “accountability,” without offering counter-framing or neutral context.
Reframe the piece around the substantive dispute: what specific actions are under scrutiny and what legal standards apply.
Use symmetrical language for both sides (e.g., “Raskin alleged… Bondi denied…”).
Clearly distinguish between factual reporting and characterization, and attribute evaluative language to specific speakers or sources.
- 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.