Γεωργιάδης: Η Καρυστιανού είναι στα ευρήματα του Medwatch-Διαφημίζει ότι είναι κβαντική γιατρός, έχει μηχάνημα βιοανάδρασης
25 outlets covered itfirst report
Settings
Sign in with your email or continue with Google. No password needed.
25 outlets covered itfirst report
Usually, in a story: 19% pro-government · 58% neutral · 23% critical
For 54 outlets the group comes from the measurement of headlines on shared stories over the last one to three months; for 26 outlets with few headlines it is the editors' estimate. We count who covered the story, not how.
Bright: the outlets that covered it. Faint: those that have not (so far). Only outlets with a position on the map.
The map changes every night with the opinion texts read so far. An outlet appears on an axis once it has enough positions. Figures of 28 October 2026. So far, 26 outlets on the map.
Each headline is judged only on how it presents the government, not on the outlet that wrote it. Each outlet counts once, with the stance of most of its headlines, as in the monthly measurement. The headline is judged together with its short summary. The judgement and the explanation are written by an artificial intelligence model.
none
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
none
Have not covered it: Apogevmatini, Capital, Dimokratia, Dnews, Eleftheria Larissa, Estia, in.gr, Kathimerini, Naftemporiki, Nea Kriti, News 24/7, Parapolitika, Rosa, Ta Nea, To Vima, TVXS.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
2 of its 2 headlines on the story take this stance.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The model's explanation does not quote words from the headline itself, so we do not show it.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
The second check did not confirm the headline's side, so it counts as neutral.
2 of its 2 headlines on the story take this stance.
