From Entity Mentions to Tone: An LLM-Based Pipeline for Media Bias Analysis

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.

Media bias detection relies on definitions and examples that specify what counts as bias, yet these specifications often vary across datasets or remain implicit, even when given the same name. Such variation makes it unclear whether models trained for the same bias category learn the same construct or different phenomena, a problem largely overlooked in prior work. We examine how definition choice affects bias annotation in a between-subjects experiment with 354 participants and a parallel evaluation with four LLMs. Participants and models rate six news articles across four bias categories using definitions that vary in conceptual framing and elaboration. Across 8,496 human and 28,800 LLM ratings, we find that the conceptual target of a definition drives annotation divergence, while construct-preserving elaboration does not: conceptual framing significantly shifts annotations for humans and does so even more strongly for LLMs. We discuss implications for construct specification in annotation protocols and prompt-based measurement, and consider how definitional sensitivity may propagate to downstream classification beyond media bias. We also release MUDD, the Multi-Definition Bias Detection Dataset.

Media bias in news articles operates through subtle linguistic cues---loaded language, selective framing, and strategic omission---that resist single-model detection and have traditionally required large annotated corpora for supervised training. We ask whether structured multi-agent deliberation can serve as a principled, training-free alternative to supervised classification for this task. We introduce MABPD (Multi-Agent Bias Probing & Detection), a pipeline in which three specialized LLM agents analyze an article from complementary perspectives and resolve disagreements through a Structured Argument Debate (SAD) protocol. SAD implements a domain-motivated asymmetric burden of proof---biased claims without grounded textual evidence carry zero weight---combined with role-weighted voting and post-consensus verification, replacing task-specific supervised decision boundaries with explicit deliberative structure. Ablation confirms that this structured deliberation, not mere agent parallelism, drives performance: removing the debate module reduces F1 by up to 10.6 points. On the BABE benchmark (4,121 expert-annotated sentences), MABPD achieves 83.4% macro F1 on the held-out test split---within 0.7 percentage points (pp) of the supervised SOTA (MAGPIE, 84.1% macro F1; Horych et al., 2024)---without any task-specific training or threshold tuning on annotated data. Cross-dataset evaluation on the SemEval 2019 HyperPartisan corpus (644 articles) yields 75.0% zero-shot accuracy, within 7.2 pp of the supervised SOTA accuracy (82.2%; Kiesel et al. 2019), confirming transfer across annotation regimes. We release the full pipeline and evaluation code.