How we select, analyse and compare the news from dozens of countries. Every step is detailed here, plainly.
Every published topic follows an automated process, governed by checks and editorial supervision, in 4 main steps:
THE 4-STEP PROCESS
COLLECTION
We continuously gather articles from a broad network of outlets — public broadcasters, independent and mainstream press — across dozens of countries.
SEMANTIC SELECTION
Semantic selection groups articles about the same event across languages — and keeps, for each country, the articles genuinely on-topic, with at least two distinct outlets per perspective.
PERSPECTIVE WRITING
AI writes each country's viewpoint — not a single outlet's voice but the national gaze — from its real articles: dominant angle, framing, detected biases, cited sources. This is synthesis of existing content, not invention.
COMPARISON & PUBLICATION
A meta-analysis computes divergences and blind spots; automated checks and an editorial review precede publication — always with every source, so you can verify.
AI is at the heart of our process: we combine several models, including Claude (Anthropic), for analysis and translation. We treat it as a tool for consistency, not impartiality. The Refract's editorial voice aims to be neutral; national perspectives reflect, by design, each country's point of view.
WHAT AI DOES NOT DO
A French journalist naturally analyzes news through a French lens. An American journalist, through an American lens. It's human nature.
AI lets us analyse each national coverage with the same reading grid, without allegiance to any country or editorial line. It is not perfect — no tool is — but it guarantees analytical consistency across all covered countries.
Each analysis is accompanied by its sources so you can verify for yourself.
Our pipeline turns raw news into structured multi-perspective analysis, under automated checks and editorial supervision, in 6 steps.
THE 6-STEP PIPELINE
SOURCES
A broad network of outlets — public broadcasters, independent and mainstream press — weighted by editorial diversity, across dozens of countries.
SEMANTIC VECTORISATION
Semantic selection groups articles about the same event across languages, without relying on keywords.
SIMILARITY SELECTION
For each country we keep the articles genuinely on-topic, with at least two distinct outlets per perspective — otherwise the country is dropped, to avoid off-topic or single-source perspectives.
PERSPECTIVE WRITING
An AI model writes each country's viewpoint from its real articles — not an outlet's voice but the national gaze. It detects angle, framing and biases. Synthesis of existing content, never invention; every link is checked automatically.
META-ANALYSIS & NEUTRALITY
Each national perspective receives one of 8 framing labels that describe how the country's media frames the story:
ACCUSATORY
Coverage that assigns blame or responsibility to a specific actor, government, or group.
DEFENSIVE
Coverage that justifies, minimizes, or deflects criticism of a specific actor or policy.
FACTUAL
Coverage that focuses on reporting verifiable facts with minimal editorial framing.
NUANCED
Coverage that presents multiple viewpoints, acknowledges complexity, and avoids binary framing.
ALARMIST
Coverage that emphasizes danger, urgency, or worst-case scenarios to provoke concern.
VICTIMIZING
Each national perspective is screened against 10 types of media bias. Here is our analysis framework:
FRAMING
The way a topic is presented influences the reader's perception. The same event can be framed as an economic crisis or a reform opportunity.
OMISSION
What is left unsaid is sometimes more revealing than what is written. Selective omission of facts shapes the reader's understanding.
SENSATIONALISM
Exaggeration of facts or use of dramatic language to capture attention, at the expense of nuance and accuracy.
APPEAL TO FEAR
Use of catastrophic scenarios or threats to influence opinion, often disproportionate to the actual risks.
APPEAL TO EMOTION
Use of emotionally charged testimonies or images to shape opinion without relying on factual arguments.
Every story shows a framing gap: it places the story among all the others by how varied the national readings are. It measures spread — it is not a judgement on the media.
HOW IS IT CALCULATED?
Before anything is written, we fix four possible frames for the story — say security, diplomatic, economic, sovereignty — each with a definition specific to that story. Those four are derived from the headline and summary alone, so before any national perspective exists. Each country is then assigned ONE of the four: the one describing what its press TAKES AWAY from the event, not the category of the event itself. A court verdict is a legal fact, but if the British press draws a lesson about Chinese debt from it, the British frame is economic. Only national perspectives count: exile media are excluded.
The score is the probability that two countries picked at random frame the event differently. All countries on one frame gives 0; all on distinct frames gives 100. One important caveat: frames assigned at random would give 85, not 100 — beyond that level there is no structure left to read. That is why the page shows a rank within the catalogue rather than a number out of 100. Below six countries no rank is shown: we measured that at five countries the score swings by thirteen points depending on which countries the collection happened to reach, and by twenty-seven at three.
WHAT THIS GAP CANNOT SEE
The frame is assigned by a model, from the dominant angle the country itself produced. An automated check verifies that the frame is one of the four offered — it does not verify that it is right. It is a judgement, stated as one, and that is why the frame appears next to the country's angle: you can dispute it. Two limits remain. Two countries can share a frame and still contradict each other on the numbers: a toll of 14 dead and a toll of 18 dead both sit in the humanitarian frame. And a frame is a single label, where real coverage often mixes several. The number therefore does not replace reading the facts, the sources and the perspectives, all of which stay available.
For each country, we analyze a diverse panel of media covering different editorial spectrums:
ARGENTINA
Mainstream press (Clarin, La Nacion), digital media (Infobae), left-leaning press (Pagina/12)
AUSTRALIA
Public media (ABC Australia), national press (The Australian, Sydney Morning Herald), international press (The Guardian Australia)
BRAZIL
Mainstream press (Folha de S.Paulo, O Globo, Estadao), independent media (The Brazilian Report)
CANADA
MethodologySources.ca
CHILE
MethodologySources.cl
CHINA
State media (Xinhua, CGTN, Global Times), official press (People's Daily)
COLOMBIA
National press (El Tiempo, El Espectador), opinion media (Semana), investigative journalism (La Silla Vacia)
EGYPT
No analysis tool is perfect. Here is what we acknowledge and what we are aware of:
We promptly correct any factual error reported to us. Here is how it works:
A second pass computes the divergence score, consensus points and blind spots. The Refract voice (title, synthesis) is screened by a neutrality check; automated checks and editorial supervision precede publication.
TRANSLATION & THE PRISM
Translation FR↔EN, then publication with all sources. Each week, The Prism distils the news and issues dated predictions, later settled publicly — an owned track record, wins and losses alike.
Coverage that centers the narrative on suffering, injustice, or victimhood of a specific group.
PRAISING
Coverage that praises, celebrates, or positively frames an actor, policy, or outcome.
CRITICAL
Coverage that questions, challenges, or scrutinizes an actor, policy, or claim with a skeptical tone.
FALSE BALANCE
Presenting two positions as equivalent when the scientific or factual consensus clearly leans to one side.
CONFIRMATION BIAS
Tendency to select and present information that confirms a pre-existing thesis while ignoring contrary evidence.
SOURCE BIAS
Excessive dependence on certain sources (official, anonymous) without diversification or cross-verification.
CULTURAL BIAS
Interpretation of events through the cultural lens of the country, projecting local values onto international situations.
DISINFORMATION
Deliberate dissemination of false or misleading information, whether state propaganda or editorial manipulation.
State press (Ahram Online), independent media (Mada Masr, Egypt Independent), regional coverage (Al-Monitor)
ETHIOPIA
Independent press (Addis Standard, Ethiopian Reporter), state media (Fana Broadcasting, The Ethiopian Herald)
FRANCE
Mainstream press (Le Monde, Le Figaro), public media (France 24, RFI), independent press (Mediapart)
GERMANY
Reference press (Der Spiegel, Die Zeit), public media (Deutsche Welle, ARD), regional press
GREECE
MethodologySources.gr
INDIA
English-language press (The Hindu, Times of India, NDTV), public media (Doordarshan), independent press (The Wire)
INDONESIA
National press (Kompas, Jakarta Post, Tempo), independent media (Tirto)
IRAN
State media (Press TV, Tehran Times), opposition media (Iran International), independent press (IranWire)
IRAQ
Kurdish media (Rudaw, Kurdistan 24), state agency (Iraqi News Agency), independent press (Iraqi News)
ISRAEL
Reference press (Haaretz), English-language media (Times of Israel, Jerusalem Post), rolling news (i24NEWS)
ITALY
National press (Corriere della Sera, La Repubblica), news agency (ANSA), business press (Il Sole 24 Ore)
JAPAN
National agencies (Kyodo, Jiji), mainstream press (Asahi Shimbun, NHK), business press (Nikkei)
KENYA
National press (Daily Nation, The Standard), regional coverage (The East African), online media (Capital FM)
MALAYSIA
MethodologySources.my
MEXICO
National press (El Universal, Reforma), independent media (Animal Politico), progressive press (La Jornada)
MOROCCO
Independent press (TelQuel), online media (Le360, Hespress), official agency (MAP)
NETHERLANDS
MethodologySources.nl
NIGERIA
Investigative press (Premium Times), national press (The Punch, Vanguard Nigeria), business press (ThisDay)
PAKISTAN
Reference press (Dawn), mainstream media (Geo News, The News International), English-language press (Express Tribune)
PHILIPPINES
National press (Philippine Daily Inquirer), investigative media (Rappler), mainstream press (Manila Bulletin, ABS-CBN News)
POLAND
Public media (TVP World), reference press (Gazeta Wyborcza, Rzeczpospolita), English-language media (Notes from Poland)
PORTUGAL
MethodologySources.pt
QATAR
State media (Al Jazeera), national press (The Peninsula, Gulf Times, Qatar Tribune)
ROMANIA
MethodologySources.ro
RUSSIA
State media (RT, TASS, RIA Novosti), independent press (Meduza, Novaya Gazeta)
SAUDI ARABIA
State media (Al Arabiya, Arab News), pan-Arab press (Asharq Al-Awsat), local press (Saudi Gazette)
SERBIA
MethodologySources.rs
SINGAPORE
National press (The Straits Times), public media (Channel News Asia), online press (TODAY, The Independent Singapore)
SOUTH AFRICA
National press (Mail & Guardian, Daily Maverick, News24), public media (SABC)
SOUTH KOREA
National agency (Yonhap News), English-language press (Korea Herald), progressive press (Hankyoreh), conservative press (Chosun Ilbo)
SPAIN
Reference press (El Pais, La Vanguardia), news agency (EFE), national press (El Mundo)
SWEDEN
MethodologySources.se
TAIWAN
English-language press (Taipei Times, Taiwan News), national agency (Focus Taiwan), analytical press (CommonWealth Magazine)
THAILAND
MethodologySources.th
TURKEY
Mainstream press (Hurriyet, Daily Sabah), public media (TRT World), independent press (Bianet)
UKRAINE
State agency (Ukrinform), independent press (Kyiv Independent, Ukrainska Pravda), online media (Babel)
UNITED ARAB EMIRATES
Official agency (WAM), national press (The National, Gulf News, Khaleej Times)
UNITED KINGDOM
National press (The Guardian, The Times), public media (BBC), tabloids (Daily Mail)
UNITED STATES
Mainstream (NYT, Washington Post), cable news (CNN, Fox News), independent media (AP, Reuters US)
VIETNAM
MethodologySources.vn