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!
New Zealand government / Trade Minister Todd McClay
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 value-laden or emotionally charged wording that subtly frames one side more negatively or positively.
The phrase: "Trade Minister Todd McClay has slammed the United States decision to impose a 12.5% tariff on most New Zealand exports." The verb "slammed" is somewhat emotive and frames McClay’s reaction as strongly negative, which can color readers’ perception of the US decision. Headline: "US decision to lift NZ tariff to 12.5% ‘not credible’: McClay" also foregrounds McClay’s negative characterization without any visible balancing quote or explanation from the US side in the truncated text.
Replace emotive verbs with more neutral ones, for example: "Trade Minister Todd McClay has criticised the United States decision to impose a 12.5% tariff on most New Zealand exports" or "has expressed opposition to".
Clarify that the "not credible" assessment is McClay’s opinion, not an established fact, e.g.: "McClay described the US decision to lift the tariff to 12.5% as ‘not credible’."
Add or show at least one explanatory or justificatory statement from the US side (e.g., a US Trade Representative comment) in the visible portion, to balance the framing of the decision.
A headline that strongly emphasizes one side’s framing or claim without clearly indicating it is an opinion or without visible balancing context.
Headline: "US decision to lift NZ tariff to 12.5% ‘not credible’: McClay". The headline is built entirely around the New Zealand minister’s negative judgment of the US decision. In the visible text, there is no US response or explanation, which can make the headline feel one-sided, even if the full article (behind the paywall) might be more balanced.
Make it explicit that this is a quote and perspective, e.g.: "McClay calls US decision to lift NZ tariff to 12.5% ‘not credible’" or "NZ Trade Minister criticises US decision to lift NZ tariff to 12.5%".
If the full article includes US justification, reflect that in the headline more neutrally, e.g.: "US lifts NZ tariff to 12.5%; McClay calls move ‘not credible’".
Ensure that in the visible, non-paywalled portion, at least a brief summary of the US rationale is included so the headline’s strong language is contextualized.
- 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.