Home News Scoring

News Scoring

How Critiker Planet News Evaluates Stories

At Critiker Planet News, we go beyond headlines. We believe news should be accurate, unbiased, and free from hidden agendas.

To ensure our reporting meets the highest standards, we use three powerful evaluation systems:

  • ICE Score (Impact, Confidence, Ease) – Determines if a story is worth publishing based on its importance, credibility, and feasibility.
  • ENSEF (Enhanced News Story Evaluation Framework) – Measures accuracy, bias, and credibility to verify whether a story is factually sound.
  • RCM (Reality Check Matrix) – Detects media manipulation tactics to assess whether a story is framed to push an agenda.

Each system assigns a score, allowing us to separate real news from misinformation, bias, and propaganda. Below, you’ll find a full breakdown of how these scoring systems work.

CP’s Version of ICE – Impact, Confidence, Ease

The ICE system helps determine whether a news story is worth publishing by evaluating Impact (importance), Confidence (credibility), and Ease (difficulty of execution). The final score helps prioritize coverage.

Higher scores mean higher priority for publishing.

ICE Score Publishing Viability Interpretation
500+ Top Priority Highly impactful, credible, and worth publishing even if difficult.
350-499 Strong Candidate Worth publishing, but may need minor refinements.
250-349 Probably OK Publishable, but could benefit from further validation or improvements.
150-249 Needs Work Potentially viable, but significant gaps exist (low impact, weak evidence, or high effort).
Below 150 Not Worth It Low priority, unlikely to gain traction or add value.

🔹Example ICE Calculations

Story Impact Confidence Ease ICE Score Viability
Major IRS Corruption Scandal 9 9 2 (9×9) ÷ 2 = 40.5 Strong Candidate
Simple Tax Refund Update 4 8 2 (4×8) ÷ 2 = 16 Probably OK
Viral Social Media Rumor 2 3 1 (2×3) ÷ 1 = 6 Not Worth It

Enhanced News Story Evaluation Framework (ENSEF) – Updated Scoring

The ENSEF system evaluates news accuracy, bias, and credibility to ensure that stories published by Critiker Planet News are factually sound and fairly presented.

Stories are scored on a 100-point scale based on three key areas:

  • Accuracy Assessment (0-45 points) – Ensures information is backed by strong sources and verifiable data.
  • Bias Analysis (0-35 points) – Measures whether the story presents a balanced and neutral perspective.
  • Media Outlet Credibility (0-20 points) – Assesses the reliability and historical accuracy of cited sources.

A higher ENSEF score means the story is more trustworthy and suitable for publication.

Category Subcategory Previous Points Updated Points Why Change It?
Accuracy Assessment Source Reliability 0-15 0-15 (No Change) No change—ensures sources are credible.
Evidence Strength 0-15 0-15 (No Change) No change—measures factual backing.
Data Verification 0-10 0-15 Increased weight—fact-checking is critical.
Bias Analysis Perspective Balance 0-15 0-12 Slightly reduced—bias doesn’t always mean inaccuracy.
Framing Neutrality 0-15 0-12 Adjusted to allow for fair editorial angles.
Language Objectivity 0-10 0-11 Minor increase to flag emotional language.
Media Outlet Credibility Historical Accuracy 0-5 0-7 Increased—track record matters more.
Editorial Standards 0-5 0-3 Reduced—standards fluctuate over time.
Overall Reliability 0-10 0-10 (No Change) No change—final credibility check.

Reality Check Matrix (RCM) – Evaluating Narrative Manipulation

The RCM system detects media manipulation tactics, helping Critiker Planet News separate genuine reporting from agenda-driven narratives.

Stories are analyzed across six key areas, with each factor scored from 1-10:

  • Timing & Agenda Setting – Is the story strategically timed or shifting focus?
  • Emotional Manipulation – Does it provoke fear, outrage, or guilt unnecessarily?
  • Framing & Narrative Control – Are key details omitted to push a specific viewpoint?
  • Credibility & Authority – Are unreliable “experts” or biased sources driving the story?
  • Data & Information Integrity – Are statistics or facts used misleadingly?
  • Hidden Influence & Beneficiaries – Who stands to gain from this narrative?

A higher RCM score suggests stronger signs of bias, agenda-setting, or psychological manipulation—helping us determine whether a story is fair or designed to influence perception.

How RCM Scoring Works

Each of the 25 questions in the Reality Check Matrix (RCM) is scored on a scale of 1-10:

  • 1 = Not Present (No signs of manipulation)
  • 10 = Overwhelmingly Present (Clear evidence of manipulation)

Since there are 25 factors, the maximum possible RCM score is 250 points.

Higher scores indicate stronger signs of narrative shaping, emotional manipulation, or hidden influence.

RCM Categories

1️⃣ Timing & Agenda Setting

Question Description
Strategic Timing Does the timing coincide with other major events in a suspicious way?
Sudden Adoption Are narratives, symbols, or phrases being rapidly adopted with no clear origin?
Deflection Tactics Does the story shift focus when challenged or when new information arises?

2️⃣ Emotional Manipulation

Question Description
Emotion Amplification Does the story provoke fear, outrage, or guilt without solid evidence?
Sensationalism Is it framed as shocking or unprecedented when similar events have happened before?
Emotional Looping Are the same emotional triggers repeated excessively?
Engineered Anger Does the narrative escalate public outrage quickly with little factual basis?

3️⃣ Framing & Narrative Control

Question Description
Echo Chamber Effect Are key phrases or narratives repeated across media without challenge?
Information Gaps Are critical details missing, making the story one-sided?
Oversimplification Is the issue reduced to a “good vs. evil” or “us vs. them” framework?
Polarization Tactics Does the story create artificial divisions between groups?
Narrative Shaping Is the framing designed to lead the audience toward a predetermined conclusion?
Artificial Choices Are only two extreme options presented, ignoring nuance?

4️⃣ Credibility & Authority

Question Description
False Authority Are questionable “experts” or biased sources driving the narrative?
Silencing Critics Are dissenting voices ignored, dismissed, or labeled negatively?
Conformity Pressure Are people pressured to agree because “everyone else believes it”?
Flawed Reasoning Does the argument rely on logical fallacies or emotional manipulation?
Pressured Response Does it demand immediate action without time for critical thinking?

5️⃣ Data & Information Integrity

Question Description
Selective Statistics Are numbers presented without full context or used misleadingly?
Conflicting Narratives Does the article push contradictory beliefs at the same time?
Information Overload Does it flood the audience with excessive data to obscure truth?
Algorithmic Bias Is there evidence of search result or social media manipulation?

6️⃣ Hidden Influence & Beneficiaries

Question Description
Beneficiary Identification Who benefits most from how the story is framed?
Cultural Exploitation Are cultural values or symbols being used to manipulate opinion?
Echoes of the Past Does the narrative resemble past manipulative events?

RCM Scoring

RCM Score Manipulation Likelihood Actionable Insight
0-50 Low No major signs of manipulation. Story is likely neutral.
51-100 Moderate Some red flags—verify claims, but manipulation isn’t certain.
101-150 High Strong likelihood of narrative control—requires deep fact-checking.
151-200 Very High Overwhelming evidence of bias, agenda, or psychological tactics.
201-250 Extreme Almost certainly propaganda or psychological manipulation. Avoid or expose.

Note: Stories published before February 27, 2025 will not be rewritten to fit this new system. However, we will assign scores to them over time as our schedule allows.

Since this scoring system is brand new, we do not know what scores these older stories will receive.