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!
UNESCO / advocates of ethical AI use in radio
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 emotionally charged wording to influence readers’ attitudes rather than relying solely on neutral, descriptive language.
Phrases such as “What is at stake is the very essence of radio: its credibility, its integrity and its human voice” and “let us ensure that radio continues to inform with integrity, connect with empathy and speak with a human voice” are value-laden and designed to evoke concern and positive feelings about radio’s role. These are clearly presented as quotations from UNESCO’s Director-General, but they still function as an emotional appeal rather than a strictly neutral description.
Clarify that these are normative, value-based statements rather than empirical claims, for example: “El-Enany framed the issue in strongly normative terms, saying that in his view ‘what is at stake…’.”
Balance the emotional language with more concrete examples or data, e.g.: “He cited examples where AI-generated content had led to misinformation or reduced trust in media, arguing that ‘what is at stake…’.”
Add a neutral summarising sentence that separates the outlet’s voice from the emotional rhetoric, such as: “These comments reflect UNESCO’s broader advocacy for human-centred media, rather than a specific documented decline in radio credibility due to AI.”
Presenting broad, consequential claims without accompanying evidence or specific examples.
The statement, “What is at stake is the very essence of radio: its credibility, its integrity and its human voice,” implies that AI misuse could fundamentally undermine radio, but no concrete cases, data, or mechanisms are provided in the article to substantiate how this is already happening or how likely it is. Similarly, “Translation and transcription tools are helping to break down language barriers and amplify Indigenous and minority languages” is plausible but presented without examples or evidence.
Add brief, concrete examples to support the claims, e.g.: “UNESCO pointed to initiatives in [country/region] where AI-powered translation has enabled broadcasts in Indigenous languages that previously had limited airtime.”
Qualify the scope of the claims, for example: “He warned that, in UNESCO’s assessment, if misused, AI could threaten radio’s credibility and human-centred character.”
Include a neutral sentence noting the lack of specific evidence in the statement, such as: “El-Enany did not cite specific studies or incidents in support of this warning in his message.”
Presenting primarily one institution’s perspective without including alternative viewpoints or critical context, even when the topic could reasonably involve differing views.
The article exclusively presents UNESCO’s framing of AI and radio: AI as a tool that must be governed by ethical frameworks, with radio’s ‘human voice’ at risk. There is no mention of: - Broadcasters or technologists who may see AI-generated voices as beneficial or neutral. - Any critical or alternative perspectives on UNESCO’s 2021 Recommendation on the Ethics of AI. Given the short, announcement-style format, this is understandable, but it still means only one side’s framing is visible.
Add at least one sentence acknowledging that there are differing views, for example: “Some broadcasters and AI developers argue that synthetic voices and fully automated content can coexist with traditional radio formats and may even increase accessibility.”
Include a brief comment or reference from a Caribbean broadcaster or media expert, either supporting or questioning UNESCO’s emphasis on ‘human voice’.
Note the genre of the piece to set expectations, e.g.: “In a statement marking World Radio Day, UNESCO outlined its position on AI in broadcasting,” making clear this is primarily a position statement rather than a comprehensive debate.
- 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.