Same Story, Different Lens: A Multi-Agent System for Cross-Outlet News Framing 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.

News headlines frame public issues both by what they select and by how they word it, yet computational framing work typically collapses these operations into a single score. We introduce a two-dimensional framework that separates salience framing, measured through four wording devices (loaded vocabulary, blame attribution, threat framing, rhetorical question), from selection framing, measured through outlet-level story-form and high-charge distributions. We build a 10,000-headline French supervision set using three LLM annotators with majority-vote resolution and human arbitration, validate the labels against two annotator-independent blind human studies, and apply the strongest classifier to 902,111 deduplicated headlines from 25 French outlets (2022-2025). Three main findings emerge. First, salience and selection divergence are positively correlated yet leave nearly half of outlet-level variance unexplained, populating interpretively distinct off-diagonal cells in a four-cell outlet typology. Second, default classification thresholds systematically inflate corpus-level salience estimates; a precision-floor recalibration protocol corrects this distortion. Third, group-mention analysis reveals sharply unequal salience contexts: headlines mentioning Jews, the Far-right, and Muslims carry the highest detected salience rates, which broad event-context composition does not fully explain (residuals are descriptive, not same-event causal estimates; per-group lexicon precision is reported alongside). To our knowledge, this is the largest framing-focused French headline audit to date; we release the supervision set, lexicons, and analysis code.

This paper presents a pipeline for analyzing media bias and framing in online news. The pipeline groups articles into topics and events, adds named-entity and sentiment annotations, and compares news sources through people mentions, source-level tone, and event-level coverage patterns. We apply it to 8,358 Albanian news articles collected from GDELT and compare the resulting annotations with GDELT's automated annotations. The results show moderate agreement for sentiment and entity extraction, as well as additional person-entity pairs that can potentially support the bias analysis. We compare two annotation prompts and find that stricter sentiment-validation rules remove label-score inconsistencies but increase execution time and reduce annotation coverage. Based on these results, the simpler prompt is used for the rest of the analysis. We have provided sample analysis on source-level framing pro les, person-level tone differences across sources, and event-level gatekeeping and coverage indicators. These outputs show how the same news collection can be used to examine what sources cover, how they describe public figures, and where coverage is concentrated. The approach is particularly useful in settings where manually verified datasets or specialized language tools are limited.