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!
General political figures / other mentioned parties
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 that follows.
The title 'Iranian President's Nuclear Deterrence After Trump-Netanyahu's Crucial Meet' suggests an in-depth analysis of Iran's nuclear deterrence strategy following a specific Trump-Netanyahu meeting. However, the body text is just a list of trending video teasers on various unrelated topics (NATO, numerology, private parts cleaning myths, Indian politics, Epstein, etc.) and contains no substantive discussion of Iran, nuclear deterrence, Trump, or Netanyahu. This disconnect misleads readers into clicking for one topic and then exposes them to a completely different set of sensational items.
Change the headline to accurately describe the actual content, e.g., 'Trending Video Clips: Politics, Numerology, Celebrity Cases, and More' if the intent is to show a mixed list of trending videos.
If the intent is to publish an article about Iranian nuclear deterrence after a Trump-Netanyahu meeting, replace the current body with a coherent, sourced analysis that actually addresses that topic.
Avoid using specific geopolitical framing in the headline unless the body provides detailed, factual coverage of that subject.
Crafting headlines or snippets primarily to attract clicks by arousing curiosity or emotion, often at the expense of accuracy or substance.
Multiple snippets are classic clickbait constructions: - 'Trump Aide’s PM Modi ‘Already DITCHED’ Russian Oil Shocker After India-US Trade Deal | Watch' uses 'DITCHED' and 'Shocker' in all caps to provoke curiosity and outrage without context. - 'Epstein Death TWIST: Did Staff Send Media After FAKE Body That Night? | WATCH' uses 'TWIST' and 'FAKE Body' to suggest a conspiracy without providing evidence in the text. - 'Starmer BRUTALLY GRILLED Amid Epstein Row | 'Most Gullible, Paedophile Backers, Grooming Gangs'' uses 'BRUTALLY GRILLED' and highly charged language to attract attention. - '‘They Broke My Door Down’: Detained Man Speaks Out After Release in Nancy Guthrie Case' is framed to maximize drama without any factual detail. - 'Iran Names US, NATO Assassination Targets On Coffins In Tehran | 'Trump's Forces Can't Do Anything'' is presented as a dramatic confrontation, but no context or verification is provided. These lines are designed to maximize clicks and emotional reaction rather than to inform.
Replace emotionally charged, vague hooks like 'Shocker', 'TWIST', 'BRUTALLY GRILLED' with neutral, descriptive wording that summarizes the actual content (e.g., 'Trump aide claims India reduced Russian oil imports after trade deal').
Include brief factual context in the teaser text (who, what, when, where, why) instead of relying on mystery or insinuation.
Avoid all-caps emphasis and sensational adjectives in headlines and teasers.
Exaggerating or dramatizing events or statements to provoke strong emotional reactions.
Several snippets use sensational phrasing: - 'Starmer BRUTALLY GRILLED Amid Epstein Row | 'Most Gullible, Paedophile Backers, Grooming Gangs'' uses 'BRUTALLY GRILLED' and extreme accusations ('Paedophile Backers') without any nuance or evidence. - 'Epstein Death TWIST: Did Staff Send Media After FAKE Body That Night? | WATCH' implies a dramatic conspiracy ('TWIST', 'FAKE Body') without substantiation. - 'Iran Names US, NATO Assassination Targets On Coffins In Tehran | 'Trump's Forces Can't Do Anything'' dramatizes the situation with provocative imagery and a confrontational quote, but no context is given about the event, its scale, or official responses. - '‘GST After Death?’ Sitharaman Takes Dig at TMC During Budget Reply' frames a policy debate as a provocative jab, emphasizing conflict over substance. The overall list prioritizes shock value and conflict over explanation.
Use neutral verbs and descriptors (e.g., 'questioned', 'criticized', 'responded') instead of 'BRUTALLY GRILLED', 'TWIST', or similar hyperbolic terms.
Provide at least one sentence of factual context with each teaser (e.g., what was actually said, in what setting, and what evidence is being discussed).
Avoid framing complex legal or geopolitical issues primarily through dramatic or conspiratorial language.
Using emotionally charged language or imagery to influence the audience instead of presenting balanced facts and reasoning.
Examples include: - '‘They Broke My Door Down’: Detained Man Speaks Out After Release in Nancy Guthrie Case' focuses on a vivid, emotional quote without any factual background, inviting outrage or sympathy without context. - 'Starmer BRUTALLY GRILLED Amid Epstein Row | 'Most Gullible, Paedophile Backers, Grooming Gangs'' uses highly emotive accusations ('Paedophile Backers', 'Grooming Gangs') to provoke disgust and anger. - 'Iran Names US, NATO Assassination Targets On Coffins In Tehran | 'Trump's Forces Can't Do Anything'' uses imagery of coffins and 'assassination targets' to evoke fear and hostility. These snippets are framed to trigger strong emotional reactions rather than to inform with balanced detail.
Pair any emotionally charged quote with clear factual context and, where relevant, responses from other involved parties.
Avoid using the most inflammatory part of a quote as the entire teaser; instead, summarize the issue neutrally and include the quote within a fuller explanation.
Ensure that headlines and teasers do not rely solely on shock or outrage but reflect the substantive content of the video or article.
Presenting only one side of an issue or omitting crucial context that would allow readers to evaluate claims fairly.
Because the content is just a list of teasers, each item presents a one-sided, context-free snapshot: - 'Trump Aide’s PM Modi ‘Already DITCHED’ Russian Oil Shocker After India-US Trade Deal | Watch' presents a claim by a 'Trump aide' but offers no data, no Indian government response, and no independent verification. - 'Iran Names US, NATO Assassination Targets On Coffins In Tehran | 'Trump's Forces Can't Do Anything'' shows only a provocative Iranian action and quote, with no context about the event, international reactions, or legal implications. - 'KC Venugopal Defends Rahul Gandhi, Slams Govt Over India-US Deal' and 'Farmers’ Interests Fully Secured in All Trade Decisions: Piyush Goyal' present partisan positions without any balancing viewpoints or analysis. The absence of context and counter-positions makes it impossible for readers to assess the accuracy or significance of the claims.
For each politically or geopolitically sensitive teaser, include mention of at least one other relevant perspective (e.g., government response, opposition view, expert analysis).
Add brief factual background (timeline, key facts, prior developments) so that claims are not presented in a vacuum.
Where claims are contested or unverified, clearly label them as allegations and indicate what evidence is available or lacking.
Presenting claims without evidence, sourcing, or indication of their reliability.
Several teasers contain strong claims without any supporting information: - 'Trump Aide’s PM Modi ‘Already DITCHED’ Russian Oil Shocker After India-US Trade Deal' asserts a major policy shift ('DITCHED Russian Oil') based solely on a 'Trump aide' with no data or corroboration. - 'Epstein Death TWIST: Did Staff Send Media After FAKE Body That Night?' implies a fake body was used, a serious allegation, but no evidence or source is provided in the text. - 'Iran Names US, NATO Assassination Targets On Coffins In Tehran' suggests official targeting of individuals for assassination, but no sourcing or verification is given. Without sources, data, or explanation, these remain unsubstantiated and potentially misleading.
Explicitly reference sources in the teaser (e.g., 'according to court documents', 'according to official statement from X', 'as per trade data from Y').
Avoid presenting speculative or unverified allegations as established facts; clearly label them as claims and indicate their status.
Where evidence is weak or contested, state that clearly and avoid sensational framing.
Using loaded or judgmental terms that implicitly favor one side or viewpoint.
Examples include: - 'Starmer BRUTALLY GRILLED Amid Epstein Row' uses 'BRUTALLY' to frame the interaction as humiliating and extreme. - 'Most Gullible, Paedophile Backers, Grooming Gangs' repeats highly charged accusations without distancing language or context, potentially reinforcing a negative frame. - 'Sitharaman Exposes Rahul’s Double Standards' (in 'Respect One, Call Another Traitor? Sitharaman Exposes Rahul’s Double Standards') adopts the framing of one political side as fact ('Exposes', 'Double Standards') rather than attributing it as a claim. These choices of words implicitly endorse particular narratives.
Replace evaluative terms like 'BRUTALLY', 'Exposes', 'Double Standards' with neutral descriptions such as 'questions', 'criticizes', or 'alleges'.
Attribute strong characterizations clearly to speakers (e.g., 'Sitharaman accuses Rahul Gandhi of double standards') instead of stating them as fact.
Avoid repeating highly charged labels in headlines without quotation marks and clear attribution.
Framing events as more contentious or dramatic than they are, often to attract attention.
Several teasers appear to amplify conflict or scandal: - 'Epstein Death TWIST: Did Staff Send Media After FAKE Body That Night?' suggests a new 'twist' and a 'fake body' without evidence, implying a fresh scandal. - 'Starmer BRUTALLY GRILLED Amid Epstein Row' emphasizes confrontation and scandal rather than substantive discussion. - 'Respect One, Call Another Traitor? Sitharaman Exposes Rahul’s Double Standards' frames a political disagreement as a dramatic unmasking of 'double standards'. The language suggests ongoing or escalating controversy even where the underlying facts may be routine political disputes or unverified theories.
Describe the actual development (e.g., 'New testimony raises questions about events on night of Epstein's death') instead of labeling it a 'TWIST'.
Avoid framing routine parliamentary debate or interviews as extraordinary confrontations unless there is clear, objective justification.
Ensure that any suggestion of scandal is backed by concrete, verifiable developments, and make that evidence explicit.
- 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.