Biasly — AI-Powered Media Bias & Manipulation Detector
Free AI Media Bias Analysis Tool
Does this article — or video — contain bias or manipulation?
Paste a news article, drop a URL, or drop a video link — YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, or X. Our AI flags manipulation techniques sentence by sentence, and for stories with a real backstory — geopolitics, economic and health policy, civil rights and more — surfaces the historical context coverage tends to leave out.
Try it free →<br>Free during beta — no account required.
Nothing to paste? See today's news, analyzed →
analyses run
✓ 18 manipulation techniques<br>✓ Historical context for major news topics<br>✓ Sentence-by-sentence analysis<br>✓ Articles, text & video
New: historical context beyond geopolitics. Biasly now surfaces the background coverage omits on economic and financial policy, public health, immigration, and civil rights — every claim cited to Wikipedia. See how →
How it works
How Biasly works
Biasly analyzes news articles, videos, and text for media bias and manipulation techniques — loaded language, false equivalence, historical revisionism, geopolitical framing, and more. Unlike a traditional fact-checker, it identifies how language is used to manipulate, not just whether specific claims are true.
Article, text, or video
Paste a URL, drop raw text, or paste a video link — YouTube, TikTok, Instagram, Facebook, or X. For articles we follow pagination automatically and analyze up to 500 paragraphs. For videos we analyze the transcript in 1-minute segments.
Two-stage AI analysis
A fine-tuned transformer classifies each sentence as manipulative or neutral. For flagged sentences, Claude AI identifies the specific technique and explains why it's manipulative — no generic labels, just precise analysis.
See exactly what's flagged — plus who's being quoted
Flagged sentences are highlighted in red. Hover or tap any paragraph to see which technique was used and a plain-English explanation. A separate source distribution panel shows who's being quoted in the article — by role and national affiliation — and flags imbalances.
Historical context
See the history this article leaves out
When an article has a real backstory — a geopolitical conflict, a financial crisis, a decades-long policy fight, a public-health debate, a civil-rights movement — Biasly surfaces the historical background most coverage skips. Two tabs side by side: a neutral encyclopedic overview, and a "what this article doesn't tell you" view that pinpoints what's missing relative to what the article addresses. Routine business, sports, and celebrity stories return nothing — no scope creep.
Geopolitical conflicts<br>Financial crises & regulation<br>Healthcare & immigration policy<br>Vaccine & climate policy<br>Civil-rights & social movements
📚<br>Background: US–Iran relations
Neutral overview<br>What this article doesn't tell you
US–Iran relations have been shaped by the 1953 CIA- and MI6-backed coup against Prime Minister Mohammad Mossadegh after his nationalization of Iran's oil industry, the 1979 Islamic Revolution and ensuing hostage crisis, the Iran–Iraq War of the 1980s (during which the US backed Iraq), the 2015 Joint Comprehensive Plan of Action nuclear deal, and the 2018 US withdrawal followed by escalating sanctions.
Wikipedia: 1953 Iranian coup ↗<br>Wikipedia: Iran hostage crisis ↗<br>Wikipedia: JCPOA ↗
Wikipedia-cited. Every factual claim links to a Wikipedia article — and the URL is HEAD-validated before it reaches you. No hallucinated links.
Delta mode. The "omitted" tab compares what the article addresses against what's commonly skipped, so you see the specific gap — not a generic history dump.
Streams in under 5 seconds. Topic and sources appear right away; prose fills in progressively. Cached for 30 days — the same article re-opens instantly.
What we detect
18 manipulation techniques, automatically identified
Manipulation rarely announces itself. These are the patterns our AI is trained to catch — and explain.
Loaded Language
Emotionally charged words that trigger fear, anger, or contempt rather than informing.
"The radical extremists are destroying our way of life."
Name Calling / Ad Hominem
Attacking a person or group with derogatory labels to discredit them without engaging their argument.
"Only a fool or a traitor would support this policy."
Appeal to Fear
Exaggerating threats to override rational analysis and demand immediate action.
"Our children will grow up in a totalitarian nightmare if we allow this."
Bandwagon Appeal
Pressuring agreement by claiming everyone is already on board, suppressing independent thought.
"Millions of patriots have already joined the movement — are you with us?"
False Urgency
Manufactured time pressure that discourages careful analysis and demands immediate compliance.
"We must act now — every hour we wait, the situation becomes more catastrophic."
Black-and-White Fallacy
Presenting only two extreme options when a range...