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!
Princess Diana / Selina Scott account
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 dramatic, emotionally charged wording and framing to attract attention rather than neutrally inform.
Headline: "Princess Diana Thought Trump Was A 'CREEP' As His Gifted Flowers 'PILED UP' At Her Apartment: Report" Body: "Princess Diana's alleged reaction to Donald Trump's reported pursuit is making headlines again." and "Scott also claims Diana described Trump with one unforgettable word." and "Here's everything about the resurfaced allegations, Trump's response, and why the story is going viral once again."
Change the headline to a more neutral formulation, e.g.: "Report: Selina Scott Says Princess Diana Was Uncomfortable With Donald Trump’s Gifts".
Remove or tone down emotionally loaded words like "CREEP" and "PILED UP" from the headline, or clearly attribute them: "Selina Scott Says Diana Called Trump a 'Creep'".
Avoid hype phrases like "unforgettable word" and "why the story is going viral once again"; instead, briefly state why the topic is being discussed now (e.g., a new interview, book, or anniversary).
Headline implies certainty or direct evidence that is not clearly supported or is only based on a single, second‑hand claim.
Headline: "Princess Diana Thought Trump Was A 'CREEP' As His Gifted Flowers 'PILED UP' At Her Apartment: Report" The body clarifies this is based on "longtime TV presenter Selina Scott" who "claims Diana described Trump with one unforgettable word." The headline, however, presents Diana’s alleged view as a fact, with only a small "Report" tag at the end, and does not foreground that this is Scott’s recollection, not direct evidence from Diana.
Explicitly attribute the claim in the headline, e.g.: "Selina Scott Says Princess Diana Thought Trump Was a 'Creep'".
Add clear qualifiers such as "allegedly" or "reportedly" in the main clause, not only as a trailing "Report" label.
In the first sentence of the article, immediately clarify that this is a second‑hand account and note whether there is any corroboration or contemporaneous documentation.
Using emotionally charged descriptions to provoke a reaction rather than present balanced information.
Phrases such as "thought Trump was a 'CREEP'", "flowers 'PILED UP' at her apartment", and "leaving the Princess of Wales increasingly uncomfortable" are selected and highlighted to evoke disgust or sympathy without providing factual detail or context (e.g., how often flowers were sent, what exactly was said, or any corroborating evidence).
Describe the situation in concrete, neutral terms (e.g., "Scott says Trump sent multiple bouquets of flowers after Diana’s split from Prince Charles, which she says made Diana uncomfortable.").
Avoid repeating the word "creep" in prominent positions except in clearly attributed quotations, and balance it with any available responses or denials.
Provide context (dates, frequency, other witnesses) so readers can assess the seriousness of the behavior rather than relying on emotional language alone.
Presenting claims without evidence, corroboration, or clear indication of their tentative nature.
The article states: "According to longtime TV presenter Selina Scott, Trump repeatedly sent Diana flowers after her split from Prince Charles, leaving the Princess of Wales increasingly uncomfortable. Scott also claims Diana described Trump with one unforgettable word." There is no mention of corroborating sources, documentation, or direct quotes from Diana, yet the narrative is presented as if it were established fact.
Explicitly label these as unverified claims, e.g., "Scott alleges" or "Scott recalls" and note that these claims have not been independently verified.
Add information about whether other contemporaneous sources (friends, staff, letters, diaries, press reports) support or contradict Scott’s account.
Include any known statements from Trump or his representatives addressing or disputing these specific allegations, and clearly distinguish between allegation and confirmed fact.
Relying on a single, potentially biased source without presenting alternative perspectives or verification.
The only source mentioned is "longtime TV presenter Selina Scott". The article does not reference any other witnesses, historical records, or independent reporting. It also mentions "Trump's response" in the teaser but does not provide it in the visible content, leaving the impression of one‑sided sourcing.
Include additional sources where possible: historians, biographers, contemporaneous news reports, or other people who knew Diana and might confirm or question Scott’s account.
If Trump or his representatives have responded to these specific claims, quote that response in full or in fair summary, not just tease it.
Clearly state the limits of the evidence: for example, "These claims are based solely on Scott’s recollection; no independent documentation has been produced."
Use of loaded or value‑laden terms that implicitly judge one side.
The headline and framing emphasize "CREEP" and "pursuit" and "increasingly uncomfortable" without balancing language or neutral phrasing. The phrase "reported pursuit" suggests predatory behavior without defining what actions occurred beyond sending flowers.
Replace or qualify loaded terms with neutral descriptions, e.g., "repeatedly sent flowers" instead of "pursuit" unless the article defines specific behaviors that justify that term.
Ensure that any negative characterizations (e.g., "creep") are clearly marked as quotations from a source, not the outlet’s own voice.
Add neutral background context about both Diana and Trump at the time (public interactions, known statements) to avoid one‑sided character framing.
Leaving out important context that would help readers fairly evaluate the claims.
The teaser promises "Trump's response" and "why the story is going viral once again" but does not provide those details in the visible text. It also does not specify when Scott made these claims, in what context (book, interview, article), or whether they have been previously challenged or corroborated.
Include the full context of Scott’s claims: date, medium (e.g., newspaper column, TV interview), and any prior coverage or disputes.
Provide the actual content of "Trump's response" if it exists, or clearly state that no response has been given.
Explain concretely why the story is resurfacing (e.g., a new documentary, anniversary, or recent comment) instead of using vague viral framing.
Using a provocative headline and teaser to entice clicks, often by overpromising or withholding key information.
The headline and subheading promise: "Here's everything about the resurfaced allegations, Trump's response, and why the story is going viral once again." Yet the provided content does not actually deliver "everything"—it withholds Trump’s response and the reason for virality, and focuses on the most inflammatory word ("CREEP").
Align the headline and teaser with the actual content: if the article only summarizes Scott’s claims, say so plainly instead of promising "everything".
Include the promised elements (Trump’s response, explanation of virality) in the body, or remove those promises from the teaser.
Avoid capitalizing emotionally charged words like "CREEP" in the headline unless directly quoting and clearly attributing them.
Presenting a story that fits common preconceptions about a public figure without critically examining the evidence, contributing to a repeated narrative that feels true because it is often repeated.
The article reinforces a negative narrative about Trump (as a "creep" pursuing women) by highlighting a decades‑old, unverified anecdote without scrutiny or balancing context. It does not question the reliability of memory, potential motives, or lack of corroboration, and instead treats the resurfacing of the story as newsworthy in itself.
Explicitly note the limitations of memory and retrospective accounts, especially about events decades in the past.
Discuss whether similar claims have been substantiated or debunked in other contexts, and avoid implying that repetition alone makes them more credible.
Include perspectives that critically assess the evidence, not just those that align with a popular narrative about the figure.
- 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.