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!
Levan Ioseliani / Public Defender
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 loaded, evaluative wording that frames one side negatively or positively rather than neutrally describing facts.
Phrases such as: - "არაერთი არასწორი ინფორმაცია და არაკვალიფიციური შეფასება იყო წარმოდგენილი" (there were numerous incorrect pieces of information and unqualified assessments) - "უბრალოდ ტყუილია" (simply a lie) - "იმ ტყუილებზე, რომელიც აქ იკადრეს" (the lies they dared to say here) - "ასეთი პოპულისტური განცხადებების გაკეთება" (making such populist statements) - "ასეთი არაკვალიფიციურობა" (such lack of qualification) These are reported without distancing language (e.g., "he alleged"), so the article effectively adopts Ioseliani’s framing.
Attribute value judgments clearly as opinions, e.g. change "არაერთი არასწორი ინფორმაცია და არაკვალიფიციური შეფასება იყო წარმოდგენილი" to "იოსელიანის თქმით, მის გამოსვლაში წარმოდგენილი იყო არასწორი ინფორმაცია და არაკვალიფიციური შეფასებები".
Add neutral context or opposing views, e.g. include a response from Sopho Khorguani or other MPs addressing these accusations.
Avoid repeating loaded labels as facts; instead of "პოპულისტური განცხადებების გაკეთება", write "იოსელიანმა დეპუტატების განცხადებები პოპულისტურად შეაფასა".
Attacking the character, competence, or motives of opponents instead of addressing their arguments.
Ioseliani’s quotes include: - "ეს თქვენი უფლებაა და თქვენს კომპეტენციაზე მეტყველებს. თქვენი კითხვები მეტყველებს თქვენს კომპეტენციაზე." - "ასეთი არაკვალიფიციურობა არ უნდა გამოავლინოთ" - "თქვენი ამოცანა იყო მხოლოდ ასეთი პოპულისტური განცხადებების გაკეთება" These focus on the MPs’ competence and motives rather than strictly on the content of their criticism.
Rephrase or balance with substantive rebuttals, e.g. focus on specific factual corrections rather than on the MPs’ competence.
The article could summarize: "იოსელიანმა დეპუტატების მიერ დასმული კითხვები არაკომპეტენტურად შეაფასა" and then list concrete factual disagreements instead of reproducing personal attacks in full.
Include the criticized side’s reply or explanation of their questions to shift focus from personal attacks to substantive debate.
Presenting assertions as fact without evidence or verification.
Examples: - "მისი თქმით, ოპოზიციონერი დეპუტატების გამოსვლები ადამიანის უფლებების საკითხებთან კავშირში არ იყო და მათი კრიტიკა ანგარიშის შინაარსის ცოდნას არ ასახავდა." - "თქვენი ამოცანა იყო მხოლოდ ასეთი პოპულისტური განცხადებების გაკეთება, რომელიც არანაირ კავშირში არ არის ადამიანის უფლებებთან." These are broad claims about the nature and intent of the MPs’ speeches, but the article does not provide excerpts of those speeches or independent analysis.
Add concrete examples from the MPs’ speeches so readers can judge whether they relate to human rights or the report’s content.
Qualify the statements clearly as Ioseliani’s opinion, e.g. "იოსელიანის შეფასებით, ოპოზიციონერი დეპუტატების გამოსვლები..." and avoid implying independent confirmation.
Include a brief editorial note or external context (e.g., what issues the MPs actually raised) to ground or challenge these claims.
Using emotionally charged language to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing on neutral facts.
Phrases like: - "უბრალოდ ტყუილია" (simply a lie) - "ისეთი რამ იკადრეთ, რაც არანაირ ჩარჩოში არ ჯდება" (you dared to do something that fits into no framework) - "გორის სოციალურ საცხოვრისზე გული რომ შეგტკივათ" (if your heart aches for the Gori social housing) These are designed to provoke indignation or moral judgment about the MPs’ behavior.
Summarize emotional statements in more neutral language, e.g. "იოსელიანმა დეპუტატების ბრალდებები კატეგორიულად უარყო" instead of quoting the most emotionally charged formulations in full.
Balance emotional quotes with factual information (e.g., data on Gori social housing conditions under different governments).
Clarify that such language reflects the speaker’s rhetoric, not the outlet’s stance, by using formulations like "ემოციური ტონით განაცხადა".
Presenting mainly one side’s perspective without adequately representing the other side’s arguments or responses.
The article extensively quotes Levan Ioseliani’s criticism of Sopho Khorguani and "For Georgia" MPs but provides almost no detail on what those MPs actually said. For example, it mentions "დეპუტატების კრიტიკა" and "ზოგიერთი ბრალდება", but does not quote or summarize their specific claims about the report, France, or Gori social housing.
Include direct quotes or detailed summaries of the opposition MPs’ criticisms that prompted Ioseliani’s response.
Provide a brief reaction or comment from Sopho Khorguani or the "For Georgia" faction to Ioseliani’s accusations.
Structure the article to present both the criticism and the response in comparable detail, rather than focusing almost exclusively on the response.
Selecting only certain facts or statements that support one narrative while omitting relevant context.
The article highlights Ioseliani’s point that Gori’s social housing had the same or worse conditions during Giorgi Gakharia’s premiership ("გახარიას პრემიერობის დროსაც იგივე მდგომარეობა იყო, შეიძლება კიდევ უარესი"), but does not provide: - Any data or description of the conditions then vs. now. - Any mention of what exactly Khorguani said about Gori social housing. This selective presentation supports Ioseliani’s argument without giving readers the full picture.
Add factual background on Gori social housing: when it was opened, what the conditions were under different governments, and any official assessments.
Quote or summarize Khorguani’s original criticism about Gori social housing so readers can see what is being answered.
If data are unavailable, explicitly state that the claim about conditions being "maybe worse" is an allegation, not a verified fact.
Portraying opponents’ arguments in a weaker or distorted form to make them easier to attack.
Ioseliani says: "იცით რა არის ტყუილი? თითქოს, მე ვთქვი, რომ საფრანგეთმა შეუზღუდა საქართველოს მოქალაქეებს არჩევნების უფლება. მე ასეთი რამ არ მითქვამს." The article does not show the exact wording used by the MPs, so readers cannot verify whether they actually claimed he said this or whether this is a simplified or exaggerated version of their criticism.
Include the precise quote or paraphrase from the MPs that Ioseliani is responding to, so readers can compare both versions.
Clarify that this is Ioseliani’s characterization of their claim, e.g. "იოსელიანის თქმით, დეპუტატებმა მას მიაწერეს განცხადება, თითქოს...".
If possible, add an editorial note or fact-check indicating what Ioseliani actually said previously about France and voting rights.
Presenting information that reinforces one side’s narrative without seeking or presenting disconfirming evidence.
The article fully reproduces Ioseliani’s narrative that the MPs are uninformed, populist, and unconcerned with human rights, and that their statements are lies, without any attempt to check or challenge these claims or to present their side. This aligns with confirmation of his perspective only.
Actively seek and include statements from the criticized MPs that might contradict or nuance Ioseliani’s portrayal.
Add independent context (e.g., prior debates on the Public Defender’s report, reactions from other factions or NGOs) to avoid relying solely on one actor’s framing.
Where claims are contested, use neutral, conditional language ("ამტკიცებს", "აცხადებს", "ამტკიცებენ") instead of presenting them as settled facts.
- 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.