Why a Multi-Dimensional Framework
Most public bias tools collapse a complex piece of writing into a single label — left, right, true, false, fake, real. That compression destroys the very structure a careful reader needs in order to evaluate the work.
FME takes the opposite approach. It profiles a piece across a set of independent dimensions, each answering a narrow, well-scoped question. The dimensions can disagree with one another, and that disagreement is informative: a piece can be emotionally loaded yet evidentially solid, or rhetorically neutral yet missing critical context.
The FME Dimensions
Philosophical Frame
The underlying worldview a piece is reasoning from — the assumptions about reality and society that shape how the argument is built.
Political Inclination
Where the piece sits on the political spectrum based on its rhetorical posture, not the author's stated affiliation.
Manipulation Risk
How aggressively the text uses persuasion techniques that bypass deliberate thinking — emotional escalation, loaded framing, false urgency.
Fallacy Density
The concentration of common logical fallacies across the piece, weighted by how central they are to the argument.
Evidence Validity
How well the central claims are anchored in verifiable, attributable evidence within the text itself.
Emotional Resonance
The intensity and direction of the emotional charge the text is engineered to produce in a reader.
Intent Transparency
How openly the piece discloses its perspective, sponsorship, or agenda versus presenting opinion as neutral reporting.
Source Reliability
An assessment of the cited sources and the upstream credibility of the evidentiary chain.
Strategic Silence
Material context, counter-evidence, or stakeholders that are conspicuously absent — what the piece chooses not to say.
Narrative Archetype
The story shape the piece falls into — hero/villain framing, decline narratives, redemption arcs, threat constructions, and similar patterns.
What Makes FME Useful
Decomposable
Each dimension scores one question well, instead of compressing many judgments into a single number.
Comparable
Outputs are uniform across articles, sources, and time so trends and outliers are visible.
Defensible
Every score is paired with structural evidence inside the analyzed text — not vibe-based commentary.
Reader-first
Designed to enrich human judgment for journalists, researchers, analysts, and critical readers — not replace it.