While media bias is widely studied, the epistemic strategies behind factual reporting remain computationally underexplored. This paper analyzes these strategies through a large-scale comparison of CNN and Fox News. To isolate reporting style from topic selection, we employ an article matching strategy to compare reports on the same events and apply the FactAppeal framework to a corpus of over 470K articles covering two highly politicized periods: the COVID-19 pandemic and the Israel-Hamas war. We find that CNN's reporting contains more factual statements and is more likely to ground them in external sources. The outlets also exhibit sharply divergent sourcing patterns: CNN builds credibility by citing Experts} and Expert Documents, constructing an appeal to formal authority, whereas Fox News favors News Reports and direct quotations. This work quantifies how partisan outlets use systematically different epistemic strategies to construct reality, adding a new dimension to the study of media bias.

Mainstream news organizations shape public perception not only directly through the articles they publish but also through the choices they make about which topics to cover (or ignore) and how to frame the issues they do decide to cover. However, measuring these subtle forms of media bias at scale remains a challenge. Here, we introduce a large, ongoing (from January 1, 2024 to present), near real-time dataset and computational framework developed to enable systematic study of selection and framing bias in news coverage. Our pipeline integrates large language models (LLMs) with scalable, near-real-time news scraping to extract structured annotations -- including political lean, tone, topics, article type, and major events -- across hundreds of articles per day. We quantify these dimensions of coverage at multiple levels -- the sentence level, the article level, and the publisher level -- expanding the ways in which researchers can analyze media bias in the modern news landscape. In addition to a curated dataset, we also release an interactive web platform for convenient exploration of these data. Together, these contributions establish a reusable methodology for studying media bias at scale, providing empirical resources for future research. Leveraging the breadth of the corpus over time and across publishers, we also present some examples (focused on the 150,000+ articles examined in 2024) that illustrate how this novel data set can reveal insightful patterns in news coverage and bias, supporting academic research and real-world efforts to improve media accountability.

Biased news contributes to societal polarization and is often reinforced by hostile reader comments, constituting a vital yet often overlooked aspect of news dissemination. Our study reveals that offensive comments support biased content, amplifying bias and causing harm to targeted groups or individuals. Counterspeech is an effective approach to counter such harmful speech without violating freedom of speech, helping to limit the spread of bias. To the best of our knowledge, this is the first study to explore counterspeech generation in the context of news articles. We introduce a manually annotated dataset linking media bias, offensive comments, and counterspeech. We conduct a detailed analysis showing that over 70\% offensive comments support biased articles, amplifying bias and thus highlighting the importance of counterspeech generation. Comparing counterspeech generated by humans and large language models, we find model-generated responses are more polite but lack the novelty and diversity. Finally, we improve generated counterspeech through few-shot learning and integration of news background information, enhancing both diversity and relevance.

Media outlets are becoming more partisan and polarized nowadays. Most previous work focused on detecting media bias. In this paper, we aim to mitigate media bias by generating a neutralized summary given multiple articles presenting different ideological views. Motivated by the critical role of events and event relations in media bias detection, we propose to increase awareness of bias in LLMs via multi-document events reasoning and use a multi-document event relation graph to guide the summarization process. This graph contains rich event information useful to reveal bias: four common types of in-doc event relations to reflect content framing bias, cross-doc event coreference relation to reveal content selection bias, and event-level moral opinions to highlight opinionated framing bias. We further develop two strategies to incorporate the multi-document event relation graph for neutralized summarization. Firstly, we convert a graph into natural language descriptions and feed the textualized graph into LLMs as a part of a hard text prompt. Secondly, we encode the graph with graph attention network and insert the graph embedding into LLMs as a soft prompt. Both automatic evaluation and human evaluation confirm that our approach effectively mitigates both lexical and informational media bias, and meanwhile improves content preservation.

This study introduces a novel methodology for scalable, minimally biased analysis of media bias in political news. The proposed approach examines event selection, labeling, word choice, and commission and omission biases across news sources by leveraging natural language processing techniques, including hierarchical topic modeling, sentiment analysis, and ontology learning with large language models. Through three case studies related to current political events, we demonstrate the methodology's effectiveness in identifying biases across news sources at various levels of granularity. This work represents a significant step towards scalable, minimally biased media bias analysis, laying the groundwork for tools to help news consumers navigate an increasingly complex media landscape. Keywords: Large Language Model, Machine Learning, Media Bias, Natural Language Processing, Ontology Learning 2 1 Introduction News is essential for keeping people and citizens informed. Reporting on world events shapes how we view our world and forms societies [1, 2].

This paper introduces TaxoMatic, a framework that leverages large language models to automate definition extraction from academic literature. Focusing on the media bias domain, the framework encompasses data collection, LLM-based relevance classification, and extraction of conceptual definitions. Evaluated on a dataset of 2,398 manually rated articles, the study demonstrates the frameworks effectiveness, with Claude-3-sonnet achieving the best results in both relevance classification and definition extraction. Future directions include expanding datasets and applying TaxoMatic to additional domains.

While detecting and avoiding bias in LLM-generated text is becoming increasingly important, media bias often remains subtle and subjective, making it particularly difficult to identify and mitigate. In this study, we assess media bias in LLM-generated content and LLMs' ability to detect subtle ideological bias. We conduct this evaluation using two datasets, PoliGen and EconoLex, covering political and economic discourse, respectively. We evaluate eight widely used LLMs by prompting them to generate articles and analyze their ideological preferences via self-assessment. By using self-assessment, the study aims to directly measure the models' biases rather than relying on external interpretations, thereby minimizing subjective judgments about media bias. Our results reveal a consistent preference of Democratic over Republican positions across all models. Conversely, in economic topics, biases vary among Western LLMs, while those developed in China lean more strongly toward socialism.

Media bias in news articles arises from the political polarisation of media outlets, which can reinforce societal stereotypes and beliefs. Reporting on the same event often varies significantly between outlets, reflecting their political leanings through polarised language and focus. Although previous studies have attempted to generate bias-free summaries from multiperspective news articles, they have not effectively addressed the challenge of mitigating inherent media bias. To address this gap, we propose \textbf{NeutraSum}, a novel framework that integrates two neutrality losses to adjust the semantic space of generated summaries, thus minimising media bias. These losses, designed to balance the semantic distances across polarised inputs and ensure alignment with expert-written summaries, guide the generation of neutral and factually rich summaries. To evaluate media bias, we employ the political compass test, which maps political leanings based on economic and social dimensions. Experimental results on the Allsides dataset demonstrate that NeutraSum not only improves summarisation performance but also achieves significant reductions in media bias, offering a promising approach for neutral news summarisation.

We present improved models for the granular detection and sub-classification news media bias in English news articles. We compare the performance of zero-shot versus fine-tuned large pre-trained neural transformer language models, explore how the level of detail of the classes affects performance on a novel taxonomy of 27 news bias-types, and demonstrate how using synthetically generated example data can be used to improve quality.

In this paper, we introduce the MediaSpin dataset aiming to help in the development of models that can detect different forms of media bias present in news headlines, developed through human-supervised and -validated Large Language Model (LLM) labeling of media bias. This corpus comprises 78,910 pairs of news headlines and annotations with explanations of the 13 distinct types of media bias categories assigned. We demonstrate the usefulness of our dataset for automated bias detection in news edits.