Given below is an article. Analyze and output in the following JSON format (no backquotes, JSON only): { "analysis": { "bias": { "score": "1-10, where 1-10 measures UNFAIR or UNHELPFUL bias. As the AI analyst, you must judge: 1. Fairness of Bias: - Is the tone/alarm proportional to events? - Is criticism warranted by facts? - Are similar actions judged equally? 2. Utility of Bias: - Does the bias help readers understand real implications? - Does it highlight genuine concerns that neutral language might minimize? - Does it provide valuable context through its perspective? Example: An article about climate change might use emotional language and scary scenarios. While this is technically 'bias', it might be USEFUL bias if it helps readers grasp real dangers that cold, neutral language would understate. A high bias score should only be given when bias is both unfair AND unhelpful.", "description": "Explain both unfair and useful bias found. For each biased element: 1. Is it fair/warranted? 2. Does it serve a valuable purpose for readers? 3. Should it be removed or retained?" }, "missing_context_misinformation": { "score": "1-10", "points": [ "", # DIRECTLY provide essential context the reader needs without ANY phrases like "the article lacks/doesn't/fails to mention/omits" etc. Simply state the relevant facts. Each point up to 5 sentences as needed. Up to 10 points. NEVER refer to the article itself or what it's missing - just supply the information directly. The missing context should try to compensate for the bias in the article, and not just add related information. ] }, "disinformation_lies": { "score": "1-10", "points": [ "" # Provide corrections for verifiably false statement. These lines should be brief. Upto 10 points. ] } }, "summary": [], # A list of 2 to 5 paragraphs. Provide a version that: * Retains key facts and proportional concerns, * Removes unfair bias while keeping warranted criticism, * Adds critical missing context, * Corrects any inaccuracies. Remove author attribution. Maintain article's POV - no meta-references. You can decide the most appropriate length based on the article.summary can be longer than the article if needed. "title": "Provide an Appropriate Title Based on the Article's Content.", "changes_made": [ "List significant changes made in the summary", "Include both removals and additions", "Note bias adjustments" ], "key_words": [ "3-10 relevant terms to help identify related articles", "Focus on major themes and topics" ] } CNN  —  The acting Inspector General of the Defense Department will review Secretary of Defense Pete Hegseth’s use of Signal in a group chat with other key national security officials to discuss military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen last month, the IG’s office announced on Thursday. In a letter to Hegseth, Acting Inspector General Steven Stebbins wrote that the objective of the IG’s “evaluation” is to determine whether Hegseth and other Pentagon personnel “complied with DoD policies and procedures for the use of a commercial messaging application for official business.” The probe will also examine whether Hegseth complied with classification and records retention requirements, the letter says. The review will take place both in Washington, DC and at US Central Command headquarters in Tampa, Florida, it adds. The chairman and ranking member of the Senate Armed Services Committee requested that Stebbins conduct a review after The Atlantic magazine reported last month that Hegseth and other senior national security officials used the messaging app Signal to discuss military strikes against the Houthis in Yemen. National Security Adviser Michael Waltz, Vice President JD Vance, and Defense Secretary Pete Hegseth, listen to a question from a reporter during a meeting in the Oval Office of the White House on March 13, in Washington, DC. Andrew Harnik/Getty Images Related article Sources say the details shared by Hegseth in Signal chat were classified as Atlantic publishes additional messages The information Hegseth disclosed in the Signal chat, including the exact timing of strikes against the Houthis and the kinds of aircraft and weapons systems that would be used, was highly classified at the time he wrote it, CNN has reported. Hegseth shared the information with the group, which included the vice president and the national security adviser, 30 minutes before the operation began, the texts released by The Atlantic showed. Top US officials have said the information shared in the text messages was not classified, and Hegseth’s spokesperson Sean Parnell also denied that any classified information was shared. “These additional Signal chat messages confirm there were no classified materials or war plans shared,” Parnell said last week. “The Secretary was merely updating the group on a plan that was underway and had already been briefed through official channels. The American people see through the Atlantic’s pathetic attempts to distract from President Trump’s national security agenda.” As part of the investigation, Stebbins indicated that Hegseth will likely have to turn over materials for the IG to review. Stebbins, who previously served as the Pentagon’s deputy inspector general, was appointed acting IG after Trump fired Robert Storch, who was fired by Trump along with more than a dozen other inspectors general at federal agencies in the first few weeks of the Trump administration.