About Neutral News
Five top stories a day. Written from facts, not framing. Every article is drafted, independently fact-checked, and validated by two different AI systems before it is published.
Why we exist
The same news event is routinely reported in incompatible ways. Word choice, emphasis, sourcing, and framing push readers toward conclusions before they have seen the facts. Our sister site, SpinDetector.com, measures that bias every day across major outlets.
Neutral News is the answer to the question that measurement raises: what would the story look like with the spin removed? We publish only what is verifiable, attribute every claim, and report disagreement as disagreement — leaving interpretation where it belongs, with the reader.
Methodology
- 1
Story selection
Every morning, we analyse the story clusters identified by SpinDetector.com — which tracks how dozens of major news outlets across the political spectrum cover the same events. The five stories covered by the largest number of independent outlets become the day’s top stories. Breadth of coverage, not editorial taste, decides what is news.
- 2
Neutral drafting
Claude (Anthropic) writes each article to wire-service standards: inverted-pyramid structure, every claim attributed to a named source, no loaded verbs, no judgment-carrying adjectives, no speculation about motives. Where sources conflict, the conflict is reported neutrally rather than resolved.
- 3
Independent fact-check
Grok (xAI) — a separate model from a separate company — audits the draft against the source coverage. It flags any claim that cannot be verified, any loaded or biased language, any missing perspective, and any opinion presented as fact, producing a structured critique with severity ratings.
- 4
Revision
Claude revises the article to address every issue raised in Grok’s critique. Required corrections are always applied; the goal is an article both models agree is accurate and neutral.
- 5
Final validation
A final editorial validation pass certifies the article: it is checked for factual neutrality, fair representation of all sides, an accurate non-sensational headline, and confirmation that earlier review issues were resolved. The article receives a neutrality rating and confidence score — both published alongside the story. Articles that fail validation are not published.
Editorial standards
- —Every factual claim is attributed to a named source — "according to", "said", "stated".
- —Neutral verbs only: people "say" things; they do not "claim", "insist", "admit", or "slam".
- —No judgment-carrying adjectives. No story is "controversial", "radical", or "historic" by our telling.
- —Conflicting accounts are reported side by side, not adjudicated.
- —Who did what is always stated directly — no passive voice that hides agency.
- —A maximum of five stories per day. Volume is not the goal; reliability is.
Honest limitations
Our articles are written from the day's source coverage — we do not have reporters in the field, and we can only be as accurate as the underlying reporting. AI review substantially reduces bias and error, but no process, human or machine, is perfect. The validation scores published with each article reflect genuine model confidence, not a guarantee.
If you believe an article contains an error, we want to know.
Contact
Questions, feedback, corrections, or press inquiries: piers@spindetector.com