The Objectivity Score — How It Works

Every story on Din Online carries an automatically computed objectivity score from 0 to 100, shown as a colorful dial next to the article. It analyses the wording of the headline and excerpt plus the source's reputation. It is an estimate only — not a judgment of credibility, and no substitute for your own critical reading.

Reading the dial: 🟢 green (75–100) = high · 🟡 amber (55–74) = medium · 🔴 red (below 55) = low; the ring fills in proportion to the score. Opinion and review pieces are flagged and are not scored.

Raises the score: factual, measured language; clear attribution ("according to", "reported", "officials say"); figures, dates and percentages; cautious hedging. Lowers it: loaded/sensational words (weighted double in the headline), opinion framing, first/second person, superlatives and absolutes, exclamation marks, rhetorical questions, teaser ellipses, ALL-CAPS, and conspiracy/clickbait framing ("you won't believe", "deep state", "conspiracy theory"). Each category is capped so no single word dominates, the headline counts double, and Hebrew & English are matched with word-boundary awareness to avoid false hits. The engine is versioned — when we improve it, every story is re-scored.

Source reputation. Beyond wording, the source matters: news agencies and professional outlets get a small boost, while unverified rumor forums and aggregators (e.g. Rotter) are capped in the red — a low score even when a headline reads calmly, so it's clear the content is unverified. We deliberately include less-reliable sources for a fuller picture of the conversation — but always flagged red as unverified, rumor or conspiracy. Always check the source before trusting a story.