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!
Government and funding agencies (Ministry of Health, CHASE Fund, NHF, NERHA)
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.
Leaving out relevant facts or perspectives that would give a fuller, more balanced picture.
The article focuses almost entirely on the positive aspects of the renovation and the statements of officials: - “A $131-million investment by the Ministry of Health and Wellness has transformed the Belfield Community Health Centre in St Mary, significantly enhancing the delivery of primary healthcare services in the area.” - “The upgraded facility is expected to benefit over 20,000 residents in Belfield and neighbouring communities, enhancing access, infrastructure and service delivery.” There is no mention of: - Any prior problems with the facility (e.g., what specifically needed improvement). - Any challenges during the project (delays, cost overruns, community concerns). - Any critical or neutral assessment from independent experts or community members. - How outcomes will be measured (e.g., health indicators, patient satisfaction). This omission does not make the piece false, but it makes it incomplete and one-sided in favor of the institutions involved.
Add background on the previous state of the Belfield Community Health Centre, including specific deficiencies or issues that the renovation aimed to address, supported by data or prior reports where possible.
Include perspectives from community members or patients (e.g., quotes from residents about access to care before and after the renovation), including any concerns or mixed views if they exist.
Mention any challenges or limitations of the project (e.g., staffing levels, ongoing maintenance costs, remaining service gaps) to provide a realistic picture.
Explain how the success of the $131-million investment will be evaluated over time (e.g., reduced wait times, improved maternal health outcomes), and note that these outcomes are expected but not yet measured.
Use of value-laden or promotional wording that implicitly endorses one side.
Several phrases adopt a mildly promotional tone, largely through unchallenged quotes from officials: - “A $131-million investment ... has transformed the Belfield Community Health Centre in St Mary, significantly enhancing the delivery of primary healthcare services in the area.” • The words “transformed” and “significantly enhancing” are strong positive claims presented as fact without supporting evidence or metrics. - “Frith described the project as a strong testament to the Fund’s confidence in the value of community-based healthcare.” • This is a self-congratulatory framing from a fund representative, with no balancing or neutral commentary. - “Smith described the project’s implementation as ‘a testament to strong collaboration and partnership with CHASE and the North East Regional Health Authority,’ and ‘a symbol of the NHF’s commitment to partnership in healthcare, including investment in this parish (St Mary).’” • These phrases emphasize institutional virtue and commitment, again without independent corroboration or alternative perspectives. While these are direct quotes, the article does not counterbalance them with neutral or critical viewpoints, which can subtly bias readers toward a very positive view of the institutions involved.
Qualify evaluative statements with attribution and, where possible, evidence. For example: “According to the Ministry of Health and Wellness, the $131-million investment has transformed the Belfield Community Health Centre and is expected to enhance the delivery of primary healthcare services in the area. Data on service outcomes are not yet available.”
Replace or balance strong positive verbs with more neutral descriptions in the reporter’s voice. For example: change “has transformed” to “has renovated and expanded” when not quoting directly.
When including self-praising quotes from officials (e.g., “a testament to strong collaboration”), add context or contrasting information, such as independent assessments, community feedback, or mention that these are the views of the institutions involved.
Explicitly distinguish between claims and verified outcomes, e.g., “Officials say the upgraded facility is expected to benefit over 20,000 residents…” instead of stating it as an unqualified fact.
Presenting assertions as fact without providing supporting evidence or clear attribution.
Some statements make strong claims about impact without evidence: - “A $131-million investment ... has transformed the Belfield Community Health Centre in St Mary, significantly enhancing the delivery of primary healthcare services in the area.” • No data are provided on service capacity, wait times, health outcomes, or other indicators to substantiate “significantly enhancing.” - “The upgraded facility is expected to benefit over 20,000 residents in Belfield and neighbouring communities, enhancing access, infrastructure and service delivery.” • The figure of “over 20,000 residents” and the claim of “enhancing access” are not sourced or explained (e.g., catchment area data, population statistics, or baseline access issues). - Quotes such as “It’s more than just a ribbon cutting; it’s about the people who use the facility every day” imply meaningful impact but are not accompanied by concrete examples or evidence.
Provide sources or data for numerical and impact claims, e.g., cite Ministry or regional health authority statistics for the 20,000-resident figure and explain how that number was calculated.
Clarify that some statements are projections or expectations rather than established facts, e.g., “The upgraded facility is projected to benefit over 20,000 residents…”
Include any available early indicators (e.g., increased patient capacity, new services offered, hours of operation) that concretely demonstrate how service delivery is expected to improve.
If such data are not yet available, explicitly state this limitation: “While officials expect the renovation to significantly enhance service delivery, outcome data are not yet available.”
Presenting mainly one side’s perspective without adequate representation of other relevant viewpoints.
The article exclusively features institutional voices: - Ministry of Health and Wellness (through the description of the investment). - CHASE Fund Board Chairman, Omar Frith. - NHF Institutional Benefits Manager, Collie Smith. - Reference to the North East Regional Health Authority (NERHA). There are no quotes or perspectives from: - Patients or community members. - Frontline healthcare workers at the facility (nurses, doctors, administrative staff). - Independent health policy experts or local officials not directly tied to the funding bodies. This creates a one-sided narrative that highlights institutional achievements and intentions without exploring how the renovation is perceived or experienced by those who use or work in the facility.
Include quotes from community members or patients about their experiences before and after the renovation, including both positive and critical views if present.
Add perspectives from frontline staff (e.g., nurses, doctors) on how the changes affect their ability to deliver care, including any remaining challenges.
If available, incorporate comments from independent health experts or local civil society groups on the broader context of primary healthcare in St Mary and how this project fits into that context.
Explicitly acknowledge the absence of some perspectives if they could not be obtained (e.g., “Community members could not be reached for comment by press time”).
Relying on statements from officials or institutions as primary justification for claims, without independent evidence.
The article’s positive framing of the project rests almost entirely on statements from high-ranking officials and institutional representatives: - CHASE Fund Board Chairman, Omar Frith, is quoted to underscore the project’s importance and the Fund’s confidence. - NHF Institutional Benefits Manager, Collie Smith, is quoted to emphasize access, collaboration, and commitment. These authoritative voices are used to validate the project’s success and significance, but their claims are not supported by independent data or third-party evaluation. This can subtly encourage readers to accept the positive framing because it comes from recognized authorities.
Complement official statements with independent data or analysis (e.g., health service utilization statistics, independent audits, or evaluations).
Include at least one neutral or independent expert voice that can contextualize or critically assess the project’s impact, rather than relying solely on those directly involved in funding or managing it.
Clearly signal when statements are opinions or institutional perspectives, e.g., “Frith said he views the project as a testament to the Fund’s confidence…” rather than implying this is an objective assessment.
Where possible, contrast official expectations with measurable benchmarks or timelines for evaluation, making clear that authority figures’ statements are not themselves proof of outcomes.
Presenting a complex situation as straightforwardly positive or resolved, without acknowledging nuances or remaining issues.
The article implies that the renovation itself largely solves primary healthcare access issues in the area: - “A $131-million investment ... has transformed the Belfield Community Health Centre in St Mary, significantly enhancing the delivery of primary healthcare services in the area.” - “The upgraded facility is expected to benefit over 20,000 residents in Belfield and neighbouring communities, enhancing access, infrastructure and service delivery.” There is no discussion of: - Staffing levels and whether they are sufficient to use the new space and equipment effectively. - Ongoing operational funding and maintenance. - Broader systemic issues in rural healthcare that may not be resolved by infrastructure alone. This can give readers the impression that the main problem (healthcare access) has been comprehensively addressed by this single investment, which may not reflect the full reality.
Acknowledge that infrastructure upgrades are one part of improving healthcare and note other factors (staffing, equipment, ongoing funding, transportation for patients) that also affect access and quality.
Include any known limitations or remaining gaps in services at the Belfield Community Health Centre or in the wider region.
If available, reference broader health system plans or data to show how this project fits into a larger, more complex effort to improve primary care, rather than presenting it as a standalone solution.
Use more measured language in the reporter’s voice, such as “aims to improve” or “is expected to contribute to better service delivery,” instead of implying that the issue is fully resolved.
- 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.