Skip to main content
AskVantage

AI and intelligence

MIT trained an AI to spot fake and biased news stories

Being able to detect and weed out fake news is quickly rising up the political agenda, and companies are in an arms race to try to find solutions fast.

Key takeaways

  • To tackle this larger issue, researchers from MIT as well as institutions in Qatar and Bulgaria have been working on a way to use Artificial Intelligence (AI) to help humans make sense of the complicated media landscape.
  • To train their AI system, they first used data from 1,066 websites listed in a source called Media Bias Fact Check.
  • Using information like this, the AI had about a 65 percent accuracy at predicting how factual the website was, and was about 70 percent accurate at detecting its bias.
Cite or link to this article

Griffin, M. (2018) 'MIT trained an AI to spot fake and biased news stories', 311 Institute, 9 November. Available at: https://www.311institute.com/mit-trained-an-ai-to-spot-fake-and-biased-news-stories/ (Accessed: 1 October 2026).

Any fact-checker who works in the media has a straightforward but challenging job, make sure all the claims in an article are true. Are simple facts, like the distance between two cities, accurate? Are the quotes correct? Are broader statements true? It’s an important task, and in an era of outright fake news, especially considering the 2016 US election and the recent midterms, it’s becoming even more crucial.

To tackle this larger issue, researchers from MIT as well as institutions in Qatar and Bulgaria have been working on a way to use Artificial Intelligence (AI)  to help humans make sense of the complicated media landscape. And they realised that an important step they needed to take before developing an AI that can fact-check individual claims was to analyse how reliable different news websites are themselves in the first place.

So they set out to make an AI that could evaluate how factually strong different sites are, and their political bias.

To train their AI system, they first used data from 1,066 websites listed in a source called Media Bias Fact Check. Then, the AI analysed information about news websites, considering sources like articles on the sites themselves, their Wikipedia pages, Twitter accounts, and even URLs. Using information like this, the AI had about a 65 percent accuracy at predicting how factual the website was, and was about 70 percent accurate at detecting its bias. One of the best resources for the AI is one that humans rely on, too.

“It turns out that Wikipedia is very important,” says Ramy Baly, a postdoc at MIT’s Computer Science and Artificial Intelligence Lab (CSAIL) and the paper’s first author. That’s because the information you need to know about a news source might be right there, the Wikipedia page for The Onion, for example, labels it as satirical right up top. The Drudge Report’s Wikipedia page meanwhile labels it as conservative. Wikipedia was important for another reason.

“Not having the Wikipedia page is associated with a website not being very reliable,” Baly adds.

Keeping in mind the overall trustworthiness of the website itself, and checking its Wikipedia page, if it has one, is a good step for regular people, too. For example, in August, Facebook and a cybersecurity firm announced they’d uncovered “inauthentic” news coming out of Iran. One of the websites associated with Iran was called the Liberty Front Press; they called themselves “independent” but appeared to actually be pro-Iran. And tellingly, the site does not appear to have a Wikipedia page.

Of course, the MIT research group aren’t the only ones using AI to analyse language like this, a Google made AI system called Jigsaw automatically scores the toxicity of reader comments, and Facebook has turned to AI to help augment its efforts to keep hate speech at bay in Myanmar.

Another source was even more important than Wikipedia for the MIT researchers’ AI system though, namely articles on the websites themselves. The AI was able to analyse between 50 to 150 articles on each news site and examine the language in them.

“Extremely biased websites try to appeal to the emotions of the readers,” Baly says. “They use a different kind of language,” when compared to a mainstream, down-the-middle site.

Balys says they’d still like to make their system more sophisticated. Their goal at this stage was to “initiate a new way of thinking of how to tackle this problem.”

So will we one day see an end to fake news and bias? Absolutely not, but maybe we’ll see less of it…

311 Intelligence

What this means for your organisation

Source scoring comes before fact checking.

Checking every claim is slow, so the team scored whole websites first. Reliability of the source shapes how claims are treated. Research and comms teams should know how their own sources rate.

Your public footprint matters.

The system leans on Wikipedia pages, social accounts and URLs. A missing Wikipedia page signalled lower reliability. Organisations publishing research should keep an accurate public record.

Accuracy is far from settled.

The system judged facts about 65 percent of the time and bias about 70 percent. That is useful but not authoritative. Treat automated credibility scores as one input, never as proof.

Three questions for your next leadership meeting

  1. How would an automated system rate the sources we rely on?
  2. Is our own public record accurate enough to support our credibility?
  3. Where could source scoring help our research or monitoring?

The trends and technologies behind this story

From the 311 Starburst, the 311 Strategic Intelligence Unit’s map of the technologies and trends shaping the next 50 years.

Brief your board on AIA private briefing on what AI means for your organisation and what to do next. In person first, anywhere in the world.
Book a Briefing

Analysis by the 311 Strategic Intelligence Unit, from Matthew Griffin’s article and 311 data. First published on Fanatical Futurist.

FAQ

Why does this matter?

Being able to detect and weed out fake news is quickly rising up the political agenda, and companies are in an arms race to try to find solutions fast.

Matthew Griffin

About the author

Matthew Griffin Founder, President and Futurist, 311 Institute

Matthew Griffin is a multi-award winning Futurist and expert in Disruption and Innovation, Geopolitics, Leadership, and Technology, who NASA have described as a "walking encyclopaedia of the future" and a "futurist Polymath."

Read full bio

Matthew Griffin is a multi-award winning Futurist and expert in Disruption and Innovation, Geopolitics, Leadership, and Technology, who NASA have described as a "walking encyclopaedia of the future" and a "futurist Polymath." 17-time best selling author of the "Codex of the Future" series, Matthew is the Founder, President and Futurist of the 311 Institute, a global Futures and Deep Futures advisory firm working with royal households, world leaders, G7, G20, and G77 governments, NGOs, and multi-national mid and mega cap firms to help them explore, shape, and lead the next 50 years of business and society.

An award-winning YouTube creator with over a million followers, with an unrivalled global reach and impact, Matthew is a highly sought-after international keynote speaker, lecturer, and mentor who collaborates with global leaders through the United Nations Alliance of Civilizations (UNAOC) and United Nations General Assembly (UNGA) to shape pivotal initiatives such as the UN’s AI for Humanity programme, the United Nations Conference of the Parties (UN COP), and the World Economic Forum in Davos.

As the former Global Head of Cloud, National Security, and Enterprise Sales for companies including Atos, Dell-EMC, and IBM, Matthew has a proven track record of building multi-billion dollar business units and turning failing divisions into market leaders. His ability to identify, analyse, and communicate the implications of hundreds of emerging technologies and trends is unparalleled, and his insights are trusted by many of the world’s most respected organisations, including ABB, Accenture, Adidas, AON, ARM, BCG, Centrica, Citi, Coca-Cola, Dentons, Deloitte, Dow Jones, EY, Google, KPMG, Lego, Legal & General, LinkedIn, Microsoft, PepsiCo, Qualcomm, RWE, Samsung, Siemens AG and Siemens Energy, T-Mobile, UBS, VISA, Walmart, Workday, Worldpay and many others.

Regularly featured in the global media including the AP, BBC, Bloomberg, CNBC, Discovery, Forbes, Khaleej Times, Telegraph, TIME, ViacomCBS, WIRED, and the WSJ, Matthews mission is to help organisations create a fair and sustainable future whose benefits are shared by everyone irrespective of their ability, background, or circumstances.

What future do you need to see?

Choose one to get started on AI and intelligence and the future of your organisation.

Where should Matthew reply?

Takes 30 seconds. No obligation. Matthew replies quickly. Privacy

Tag Cloud

Dossier opens the 311 Starburst dossier for that technology or trend.

Sources and further reading

  1. AI that can fact-check popsci.com
  2. Media Bias Fact Check mediabiasfactcheck.com
  3. 1810.01765.pdf arxiv.org
  4. The Onion en.wikipedia.org
  5. Drudge Report en.wikipedia.org
  6. “inauthentic” news coming out of Iran popsci.com
  7. automatically scores the toxicity popsci.com
  8. turned to AI newsroom.fb.com

Source: first published by the 311 Institute on 9 November 2018. Cite as: Griffin, M. (2018). MIT trained an AI to spot fake and biased news stories. 311 Institute. https://www.311institute.com/mit-trained-an-ai-to-spot-fake-and-biased-news-stories/

You are welcome to quote this article with credit and a link to the original.

Book a Keynote