Public methodology · version 2026.1
Article Framing Analysis
A transparent, article-level assessment of how a news story selects, emphasizes, attributes, and scrutinizes political information. It is not a factuality score and it does not rate the publisher.
What the analysis considers
The system examines the headline, available article body or excerpt, source mix, attribution, loaded language, policy assumptions, omitted or added context, and which claims receive scrutiny. It compares reporting with the official release while treating that release as a set of claims—not as neutral truth.
The seven-point scale
Multiple strong article-specific signals consistently favour left-wing policy assumptions or actors.
Clear recurring left-leaning selection, language, source, or scrutiny signals.
A modest leftward framing tendency with meaningful counter-context still present.
No consistent directional framing is evident in the material analyzed.
A modest rightward framing tendency with meaningful counter-context still present.
Clear recurring right-leaning selection, language, source, or scrutiny signals.
Multiple strong article-specific signals consistently favour right-wing policy assumptions or actors.
Evidence and confidence
Evidence quality describes how much source material was available. Confidence describes how securely the observed signals support the category. Headline-only or excerpt-only analyses are always marked low confidence and limited evidence. Extreme categories require multiple, consistent indicators.
Important limitations
- Political framing is not the same as truth, accuracy, intent, or partisan affiliation.
- A centre rating does not mean an article is correct or complete.
- An article may legitimately scrutinize one position more than another because of the underlying evidence.
- Automated analysis can miss irony, local political context, paywalled material, images, charts, or later corrections.
- Readers should open the original article and use this assessment as a starting point, not a final judgment.
Review and corrections
Premium readers can flag an assessment. Administrators can review the evidence, correct the category, adjust confidence, edit the explanation, regenerate the analysis, or hide it. Substantive reviews are timestamped.
Questions or correction requests can be sent to supportnewsroom@gmail.com.