Media-literacy prompts

Assess this specific claim: “[paste the exact claim]”. Judge only the claim, not any person. Give a verdict of TRUE, FALSE, MISLEADING or UNVERIFIED, a confidence from 0 to 100, the key reasoning, and exactly what primary source would settle it. If you can't verify it reliably, say UNVERIFIED rather than guessing. Remind me that this is an AI-assisted assessment, not a definitive ruling, and that I should check the primary source myself.

Here is a claim: “[paste the claim]”. It may be technically true but misleading. Tell me what important context, caveat or timeframe is missing that would change how I read it, and whether the framing pushes a particular conclusion. Point me to the kind of primary source I should check to see the full picture.

A post cites this statistic: “[paste the number and its claim]”. Explain how a figure like this can be presented in a misleading way (cherry-picked baseline, wrong denominator, absolute vs relative, outdated). Tell me what to look for, and which official record or dataset I should check the number against directly.

Read this text and list its separate factual claims, one per line: “[paste the article or message]”. For each claim, mark whether it is CHECKABLE (a specific, verifiable fact) or NOT-CHECKABLE (opinion, prediction, or too vague). Don't judge them yet — just separate them. This is to help me decide what to verify against primary sources.

In this passage, separate the statements of fact from the statements of opinion or interpretation: “[paste the passage]”. For each factual statement, note what source would confirm it. Keep the two lists clearly apart so I know which parts I can verify and which are the author's take.

Here is a headline and the body of an article. Does the headline overstate, sensationalise or contradict what the body actually supports? Headline: “[paste]”. Body: “[paste]”. List any gaps between the two, and remind me to read past the headline and check the primary source.

Analyse the framing of this piece without judging any person: “[paste the text]”. What perspective or leaning does the wording suggest, which facts are emphasised or left out, and what conclusion is the reader nudged towards? Assess the language and structure only. Then tell me what a more neutral version would look like, and what primary sources I'd check to form my own view.

List the loaded or slanted words and phrases in this text and, for each, suggest a neutral alternative: “[paste the text]”. Explain briefly how the loaded wording steers the reader. This is about the language, not the author.

Reading this piece, what context, counter-argument or perspective is notably absent that a balanced account would include? “[paste the text]”. List the gaps and, for each, the kind of primary source I could go to for the other side.

Rate the emotional-language intensity of this text from 0 (calm and factual) to 100 (highly charged), and quote the specific phrases that drive the score: “[paste the text]”. Note which emotions it's reaching for (fear, outrage, urgency). Then remind me that strong emotion plus thin evidence is a signal to slow down and check the primary source.

Identify any persuasion or manipulation tactics in this message — false urgency, fear appeals, us-vs-them framing, cherry-picking, straw man, appeal to authority without evidence: “[paste the message]”. Name each tactic you find and quote where it appears. Assess the technique, not the sender.

This is a forwarded message urging me to share it widely: “[paste the message]”. Point out the classic red flags of a viral hoax (urgency to forward, unnamed authority, no date, no verifiable source, too-neat story). Tell me what to verify before I forward anything, and which primary source would confirm or debunk it.

Give me a short checklist to judge how much to trust this piece: “[paste a description or the text]”. Cover who is behind it, whether it cites primary sources, whether claims are dated and specific, whether it separates fact from opinion, and whether it can be corroborated elsewhere. For each item, tell me what a trustworthy answer looks like — and remind me to check the primary sources directly rather than rely on any single retelling.

This piece refers to a study, report or document: “[paste the reference or quote]”. Explain how I'd trace it back to the original primary source, and what to check once I find it (does it actually say this, in what context, how recent, who produced it). Warn me about the game-of-telephone effect where a claim drifts from what the source really said.

I have a screenshot or image being shared as evidence for a claim: [describe what it shows and the claim]. List the ways an image like this can mislead (old image reused, cropped, staged, edited, wrong caption), and the steps to verify it — including finding the original and checking it against a primary source — before I treat it as proof.

Here are two accounts of the same event. A: “[paste report A]”. B: “[paste report B]”. List the facts they agree on, the facts they disagree on, and what each one emphasises or omits. Don't take a side — just map the differences, and tell me which specific points I'd need a primary source to resolve.

These two pieces seem to use the same underlying facts but reach different tones or conclusions. A: “[paste]”. B: “[paste]”. Show me how the framing, word choice and selection of facts create the different impressions, without endorsing either. Suggest what a neutral summary of the shared facts would be.

Given these differing accounts of “[topic]”, help me build a checklist of the open questions I'd need answered to form my own view, and for each question name the type of primary source (official record, original document, direct data) that would answer it best.