Multi-document news summarisation systems are increasingly adopted for their convenience in processing vast daily news content, making fairness across diverse political perspectives critical. However, these systems can exhibit political bias through unequal representation of viewpoints, disproportionate emphasis on certain perspectives, and systematic underrepresentation of minority voices. This study presents a comprehensive evaluation of such bias in multi-document news summarisation using FairNews, a dataset of complete news articles with political orientation labels, examining how large language models (LLMs) handle sources with varying political leanings across 13 models and five fairness metrics. We investigate both baseline model performance and effectiveness of various debiasing interventions, including prompt-based and judge-based approaches. Our findings challenge the assumption that larger models yield fairer outputs, as mid-sized variants consistently outperform their larger counterparts, offering the best balance of fairness and efficiency. Prompt-based debiasing proves highly model dependent, while entity sentiment emerges as the most stubborn fairness dimension, resisting all intervention strategies tested. These results demonstrate that fairness in multi-document news summarisation requires multi-dimensional evaluation frameworks and targeted, architecture-aware debiasing rather than simply scaling up.
Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.
As the application of Large Language Models (LLMs) spreads across various industries, there are increasing concerns about the potential for their misuse, especially in sensitive areas such as political discourse. Deliberately aligning LLMs with specific political ideologies, through prompt engineering or fine-tuning techniques, can be advantageous in use cases such as political campaigns, but requires careful consideration due to heightened risks of performance degradation, misinformation, or increased biased behavior. In this work, we propose a multi-dimensional framework inspired by Habermas' Theory of Communicative Action to audit politically aligned language models across four dimensions: effectiveness, fairness, truthfulness, and persuasiveness using automated, quantitative metrics. Applying this to nine popular LLMs aligned via fine-tuning or role-playing revealed consistent trade-offs: while larger models tend to be more effective at role-playing political ideologies and truthful in their responses, they were also less fair, exhibiting higher levels of bias in the form of angry and toxic language towards people of different ideologies. Fine-tuned models exhibited lower bias and more effective alignment than the corresponding role-playing models, but also saw a decline in performance reasoning tasks and an increase in hallucinations. Overall, all of the models tested exhibited some deficiency in at least one of the four metrics, highlighting the need for more balanced and robust alignment strategies. Ultimately, this work aims to ensure politically-aligned LLMs generate legitimate, harmless arguments, offering a framework to evaluate the responsible political alignment of these models.
Media bias detection has predominantly been framed as a classification task: assign a political label to an article or outlet. We argue this framing is too shallow: it identifies that bias exists but not where, how, or crucially, what is structurally omitted. We present NewsLens, a five-agent adversarial pipeline for structured news bias navigation. A Fact Verifier, Progressive Framing Analyst, Conservative Framing Analyst, Propaganda Detector, and Neutral Summarizer collaborate to deconstruct articles into interpretable framing maps, exposing ideological omissions, rhetorical manipulation, and framing boundaries. The system is evaluated on 15 articles across four geopolitical event clusters (India-Pakistan Kashmir, Gaza, Climate Policy, Ukraine) using Qwen2.5-3B-Instruct (4-bit quantised, Google Colab T4), with cross-model validation using Mistral 7B on the Kashmir cluster. Center outlets show the highest mean Perspective Divergence Score (PDS: Qwen 0.907, Mistral 0.729 on Kashmir subset); conservative-framing outlets show the highest mean Manipulation Index (MI: 0.600 across both models). Cross-model comparison shows high consistency for high-propaganda content (Republic World delta-PDS=0.125, MI=0.8 both models) and greater variance for nuanced reporting. Mann-Whitney U tests find no statistically significant between-group differences at n=15, reported honestly as a sample-size limitation confirmed by post-hoc power analysis. A partial ablation removing the Propaganda Detector shows degraded omission precision in the Neutral Summarizer output. The architecture extends prior lexical-geometric bias work to agentic LLM reasoning, and is fully reproducible using open-weight models without API keys.