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!
Anti‑Trump / Critical‑of‑Trump framing
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, emotionally charged, or vague headlines designed to attract clicks rather than accurately summarize content.
Examples: - "IRGC Revenge Coming? Trump Threatens To Wipe Out Iran Leaders At Khamenei Funeral With ‘One Shot’" - "Red, White & BILLIONS! July 4 Fireworks Can't Outshine Trump's $2 BN Fortune; SHOCK Data Out" - "Pope Leo XIV's Fourth Of July Move Stuns Trump Supporters With Powerful Immigration Message" - "'Impeach Trump Now!': Air Force Major's Bombshell Speech Ends In Arrest; New July 4 Scandal On Cam" - "Kyiv's Last Stronghold Falls: Putin’s Military General's Shock Reveal After Konstantinovka Capture" These headlines emphasize shock, scandal, and surprise, often with capitalized words (BILLIONS!, SHOCK, Bombshell, Stuns) and vague promises of dramatic revelations, without providing context or evidence.
Replace sensational phrasing with specific, descriptive language that accurately reflects the content. For example: change "IRGC Revenge Coming? Trump Threatens To Wipe Out Iran Leaders At Khamenei Funeral With ‘One Shot’" to "Report: Trump Suggests Possible Strike on Iranian Leadership During Remarks About Khamenei Funeral".
Avoid all‑caps emphasis and words like "SHOCK", "Bombshell", "Stuns" unless clearly justified and supported by verifiable facts. For example: change "Red, White & BILLIONS! July 4 Fireworks Can't Outshine Trump's $2 BN Fortune; SHOCK Data Out" to "New Financial Disclosure Estimates Trump’s Net Worth at $2 Billion".
Remove vague teasers such as "On Cam", "In Focus", "Powerful Message" unless the headline briefly explains what was said or shown. For example: change "Pope Leo XIV's Fourth Of July Move Stuns Trump Supporters With Powerful Immigration Message" to "Pope Leo XIV Issues July 4 Statement Calling for More Open Immigration Policies".
Overstating drama, danger, or emotional impact to provoke strong reactions rather than inform.
Examples: - "IRGC Revenge Coming?" implies imminent violent retaliation without evidence in the headline. - "Trump Threatens To Wipe Out Iran Leaders ... With ‘One Shot’" uses extreme language ("wipe out", "one shot") that maximizes fear and drama. - "Khamenei Funeral on Edge? Iran Claims CIA-Mossad Terror Cells Busted" frames the situation as highly volatile and conspiratorial. - "Sea Showdown! China Deploys Coast Guard Near Taiwan, Taipei Responds" uses "Showdown" to suggest imminent conflict. - "Kyiv's Last Stronghold Falls" and "Shock Reveal" heighten a sense of catastrophe and surprise. - "Mamata Calls TMC Rebels 'Traitors', Dares Rivals To 'Kill Me' As Party Split Deepens" focuses on the most inflammatory quote to dramatize internal party conflict.
Use neutral verbs and avoid catastrophic or militaristic metaphors unless they are direct quotes clearly attributed. For example: change "Sea Showdown! China Deploys Coast Guard Near Taiwan, Taipei Responds" to "China Deploys Coast Guard Near Taiwan; Taipei Issues Response".
Avoid rhetorical questions that imply imminent disaster (e.g., "IRGC Revenge Coming?") and instead state what is known: "Analysts Debate Possibility of IRGC Retaliation After Recent Events".
When quoting extreme language ("wipe out", "kill me"), clearly attribute it and balance with context or responses from other parties.
Using emotionally charged language to influence the audience’s feelings rather than presenting balanced facts.
Examples: - "Heartbreaking July 4 Tribute To Khamenei? Trump Camp Shocked" uses "heartbreaking" and "shocked" to steer emotional reactions. - "'Impeach Trump Now!': Air Force Major's Bombshell Speech Ends In Arrest; New July 4 Scandal On Cam" uses "Bombshell" and "Scandal" to provoke outrage. - "It's A 100 Degrees!': JD Vance Insults U.S. Sailors At July 4 Speech? VP's Handshake In Focus" frames the event as an insult and scandal, focusing on outrage rather than content. - "DIGNITY FOR ALL': Pope Leo's Stern July 4 Message To Trump Amid Crackdown On Immigrants" uses "stern" and "crackdown" to frame moral judgment. - "Red, White & BILLIONS!" and "SHOCK Data Out" are designed to trigger envy or indignation.
Replace evaluative adjectives ("heartbreaking", "bombshell", "stern", "shock") with neutral descriptors and let readers infer emotional weight from facts. For example: "Gov Wes Moore Delivers July 4 Speech Mentioning Khamenei; Trump Campaign Criticizes Remarks".
Avoid framing events primarily as "scandals" or "insults"; instead, describe what was said or done and include reactions from multiple sides.
When moral or emotional language is necessary (e.g., quoting a speaker), clearly attribute it and balance with other perspectives.
Word choices that implicitly judge or frame one side positively or negatively.
Examples: - "Crackdown On Immigrants" presupposes a harsh, unjust policy without specifying measures or legal context. - "Trump Threatens To Wipe Out Iran Leaders" uses "wipe out" instead of a more precise term like "strike" or "target", amplifying aggression. - "Mamata Calls TMC Rebels 'Traitors'" highlights the most inflammatory label without indicating the rebels’ perspective. - "Khamenei Funeral on Edge?" suggests instability and danger without evidence. - "Kyiv's Last Stronghold Falls" may overstate the strategic importance of a location without context.
Use neutral, descriptive terms for policies and actions (e.g., "tightened immigration enforcement" instead of "crackdown" unless quoting a source).
When using strong terms like "wipe out" or "traitors", clearly mark them as direct quotes and provide context and responses from the targeted side.
Avoid presuppositions in questions ("on edge?") and instead state what is known: "Security Tightened at Khamenei Funeral, Officials Say".
Presenting or implying serious claims (e.g., threats, conspiracies, scandals) without indicating evidence or sourcing in the headline.
Examples: - "IRGC Revenge Coming?" implies a specific future action without any indication of basis. - "Iran Claims CIA-Mossad Terror Cells Busted" repeats a serious allegation without clarifying it is an unverified claim by Iranian authorities. - "Air Force Major's Bombshell Speech Ends In Arrest; New July 4 Scandal On Cam" implies wrongdoing and scandal but provides no factual basis in the headline. - "Kedarnath-Badrinath Donation Row: Cong Questions BJP, Temple Committee Launches Probe" hints at impropriety but does not specify what is alleged. - "J&K School Book Controversy: BJP, Civil Society Demand Probe Over Book Glorifying Separatists" suggests "glorifying" as fact without clarifying it is an allegation.
Clearly attribute contentious or unverified claims to their sources in the headline (e.g., "Iran Says It Has Dismantled Alleged CIA-Mossad Cells; Claims Not Independently Verified").
Avoid implying certainty about future events ("Revenge Coming?") and instead describe discussions or concerns: "Analysts Discuss Possibility of IRGC Retaliation".
Specify the nature of alleged misconduct in neutral terms and indicate that investigations are ongoing: "Probe Launched Into Use of School Book Accused of Praising Separatist Leaders".
Framing events as dramatic conflicts or scandals even when they may be routine disagreements or complex issues.
Examples: - "VP's Handshake In Focus" suggests a minor gesture is a major political issue. - "New July 4 Scandal On Cam" labels an event as a scandal without explaining why. - "Pope Leo XIV's Fourth Of July Move Stuns Trump Supporters" implies a monolithic reaction among "Trump supporters" and exaggerates surprise. - "Tehran Issues Ultimatum To NATO As Macron And Starmer Target Hormuz With Naval Mission" compresses multiple complex diplomatic and military actions into a simple "ultimatum" and "target" narrative.
Reserve terms like "scandal", "ultimatum", and "stuns" for situations where there is clear, widely recognized controversy or formal diplomatic language to that effect.
Avoid implying that entire groups (e.g., "Trump supporters") share a single reaction; specify which individuals or organizations reacted and how.
Provide context in the headline or subheadline that indicates the complexity of the issue rather than reducing it to a single dramatic conflict.
Headlines crafted to confirm existing beliefs or animosities of particular audiences, reinforcing polarized views.
Examples: - Multiple Trump‑related headlines either glorify wealth and power ("$2 BN Fortune") or highlight scandals and calls for impeachment, appealing to both pro‑ and anti‑Trump audiences in different pieces. - Headlines about immigration and the Pope’s message are framed in a way likely to resonate with audiences already critical of Trump’s immigration policies. - Headlines about Iran, CIA, Mossad, and "terror cells" tap into existing narratives of covert conflict and conspiracy. The pattern suggests content tailored to provoke and confirm strong pre‑existing views rather than challenge or nuance them.
Frame headlines to emphasize new, verifiable information rather than to validate a particular audience’s pre‑existing stance.
Include nuance or counterpoints in subheadlines or descriptions (e.g., mention differing expert views or official denials).
Avoid framing that assumes the reader already agrees with a moral or political judgment; instead, present facts and a range of reactions.
Attributing reactions or positions to large, diverse groups as if they were uniform.
Examples: - "Pope Leo XIV's Fourth Of July Move Stuns Trump Supporters" implies all or most Trump supporters are stunned, which is unlikely and unsubstantiated. - "Trump Camp Shocked" may overgeneralize the reaction of a campaign based on statements from a few individuals. - "Civil Society Demand Probe" suggests a unified stance from a broad and diverse set of organizations.
Specify which individuals or organizations reacted and how, instead of using broad labels like "Trump supporters" or "civil society".
Use more cautious phrasing such as "Some Trump supporters say they were surprised" or "Several civil society groups call for a probe".
Where possible, include indications of disagreement or diversity of opinion within these groups.
- 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.