Detecting political bias in news media is a complex task that requires interpreting subtle linguistic and contextual cues. Although recent advances in Natural Language Processing (NLP) have enabled automatic bias classification, the extent to which large language models (LLMs) align with human judgment still remains relatively underexplored and not yet well understood. This study aims to present a comparative framework for evaluating the detection of political bias across human annotations and multiple LLMs, including GPT, BERT, RoBERTa, and FLAN. We construct a manually annotated dataset of news articles and assess annotation consistency, bias polarity, and inter-model agreement to quantify divergence between human and model perceptions of bias. Experimental results show that among traditional transformer-based models, RoBERTa achieves the highest alignment with human labels, whereas generative models such as GPT demonstrate the strongest overall agreement with human annotations in a zero-shot setting. Among all transformer-based baselines, our fine-tuned RoBERTa model acquired the highest accuracy and the strongest alignment with human-annotated labels. Our findings highlight systematic differences in how humans and LLMs perceive political slant, underscoring the need for hybrid evaluation frameworks that combine human interpretability with model scalability in automated media bias detection.

This study explores the prevalence of hate speech (HS) and sentiment in YouTube video comments concerning the Israel-Palestine conflict by analyzing content from both public and private news sources. The research involved annotating 4983 comments for HS and sentiments (neutral, pro-Israel, and pro-Palestine). Subsequently, machine learning (ML) models were developed, demonstrating robust predictive capabilities with area under the receiver operating characteristic (AUROC) scores ranging from 0.83 to 0.90. These models were applied to the extracted comment sections of YouTube videos from public and private sources, uncovering a higher incidence of HS in public sources (40.4%) compared to private sources (31.6%). Sentiment analysis revealed a predominantly neutral stance in both source types, with more pronounced sentiments towards Israel and Palestine observed in public sources. This investigation highlights the dynamic nature of online discourse surrounding the Israel-Palestine conflict and underscores the potential of moderating content in a politically charged environment.

In politically sensitive scenarios like wars, social media serves as a platform for polarized discourse and expressions of strong ideological stances. While prior studies have explored ideological stance detection in general contexts, limited attention has been given to conflict-specific settings. This study addresses this gap by analyzing 9,969 Reddit comments related to the Israel-Palestine conflict, collected between October 2023 and August 2024. The comments were categorized into three stance classes: Pro-Israel, Pro-Palestine, and Neutral. Various approaches, including machine learning, pre-trained language models, neural networks, and prompt engineering strategies for open source large language models (LLMs), were employed to classify these stances. Performance was assessed using metrics such as accuracy, precision, recall, and F1-score. Among the tested methods, the Scoring and Reflective Re-read prompt in Mixtral 8x7B demonstrated the highest performance across all metrics. This study provides comparative insights into the effectiveness of different models for detecting ideological stances in highly polarized social media contexts. The dataset used in this research is publicly available for further exploration and validation.