{"id":125355,"date":"2025-07-03T07:14:53","date_gmt":"2025-07-03T15:14:53","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/03\/law360-using-ai-bias-detector-to-make-sure-stories-dont-accidentally-tell-the-truth\/"},"modified":"2025-07-03T07:14:53","modified_gmt":"2025-07-03T15:14:53","slug":"law360-using-ai-bias-detector-to-make-sure-stories-dont-accidentally-tell-the-truth","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/2025\/07\/03\/law360-using-ai-bias-detector-to-make-sure-stories-dont-accidentally-tell-the-truth\/","title":{"rendered":"Law360 Using AI Bias Detector To Make Sure Stories Don\u2019t Accidentally Tell The Truth"},"content":{"rendered":"
\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The biggest story in journalism right now is that CBS News agreed to give Donald Trump $16 million in a legally blessed bribe<\/a>. The great sin of \u201cThe House That Edward R. Morrow Built\u201d involved 60 Minutes airing a run-of-the-mill interview with Kamala Harris that made her look like a competent public servant with years of experience. Since Trump\u2019s interviews, regardless of editing, sound like a dementia patient navigating a law school cold call, he decided CBS had committed consumer fraud because Harris spoke in complete sentences.<\/p>\n

But apparently we weren\u2019t done with today\u2019s \u201cdystopian assault on freedom of the press\u201d news! And it came after an unlikely target: Law360. I certainly didn\u2019t have \u201clegal industry trade publication\u201d on my censorship BINGO card. Then again, Biglaw lateral moves have suddenly become political stories<\/a> so perhaps this marks inevitable cowardice creep reaching the legal press. <\/p>\n

But the part of this story that elevates it from ominous development for civil liberties to comi-tragic is that Law360 is owned by LexisNexis and therefore the agent of Law360\u2019s doom is\u2026 an AI algorithm! A new bias detecting ChatGPT wrapper slapped together by some LexisNexis product engineers probably taken away from actually useful work<\/a> to build a degenerative AI to strip news articles of any semblance of value. 2025, man\u2026 Does. Not. Miss.<\/p>\n

NiemanLab, Harvard\u2019s digital journalism center, reports that Law360 has ordered its reporters run their stories through an AI bias detector<\/a> designed for \u201capplying a neutral voice to copy\u201d and to be mandatory for \u201cheadline drafting, story tagging, and \u2018article refinement and editing.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

As one might imagine the journalists, represented by the Law360 union, object to this half-baked idea. A policy this ethically bankrupt could only arise from non-journalist executive input.<\/p>\n

\n

The announcement came a few weeks after an executive at Law360\u2019s parent company accused the newsroom of liberal political bias in its coverage of the Trump administration. At an April town hall meeting,\u00a0Teresa Harmon<\/a>, vice president of legal news at LexisNexis, cited unspecified reader complaints as evidence of editorial bias. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Giving uncritical weight to squeaky wheel complaints, especially in an environment where a government official weaponized his followers to act on their every grievance up to and including STORMING THE FUCKING CAPITOL, is a dunderheaded management strategy only an MBA could come up with. But it\u2019s almost certainly a cynical one. If we all start writing complaints that the headlines are neutered doublespeak, will Law360 be ordered to reverse course? I\u2019m incredulous.<\/p>\n

While the article notes that there\u2019s not an established throughline from those remarks to the implementation of the policy, it speaks to a mindset that clearly got out of hand.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s put aside the wisdom of the policy and focus on the fact that the bias detector is also terrible at its job. Because that\u2019s just a little bit more fun. Only at a tech company could someone think that generative AI tools being developed for dedicated legal work tasks could be bolted onto the editorial process of a news publication. <\/p>\n

Generative AI is a powerful tool in the same way a screwdriver is a powerful tool. But you wouldn\u2019t use a screwdriver to do your taxes. Yet that\u2019s the thinking involved in bringing AI into an editorial process. To borrow from the TV series Veep<\/em>, it\u2019s like using a croissant as a dildo: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t do the job, and it makes a fucking MESS!\u201d <\/p>\n

\n

She also criticized the\u00a0headline of a March 28 story<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 \u201cDOGE officials arrive at SEC with unclear agenda\u201d \u2014 as an example. In the same town hall, Harmon suggested that the still experimental bias indicator might be an effective solution to this problem, according to two employees in attendance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But\u2026 DOGE officials did<\/em> arrive at the SEC with an unclear agenda. The White House couldn\u2019t be clear about who was running DOGE<\/a> let alone its agenda. This is just a factual statement that, if anything, is biased in favor of DOGE since its suspected agenda to steal data and hamper regulation was about as disguised as three raccoons in a trench coat.<\/p>\n

The report notes another story about the Trump decision to mobilize the California National Guard:<\/p>\n

\n

Several sentences in the story were flagged as biased, including this one: \u201cIt\u2019s the first time in 60 years that a president has mobilized a state\u2019s National Guard without receiving a request to do so from the state\u2019s governor.\u201d According to the bias indicator, this sentence is \u201cframing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration.\u201d It was best to give more context to \u201cbalance the tone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It was<\/em> the first time in 60 years though! That is the relevant context. As is the juxtaposition with the civil rights era since the last time a president did this, it was to push back against segregationists while this time it was about breaking up a conga line. Absent that context, it strips a radical encroachment on state sovereignty of its newsworthiness. <\/p>\n

The algorithm also apparently wanted the article to tone down its characterization of Judge Breyer\u2019s response:<\/p>\n

\n

Another line was flagged for suggesting Judge Charles Breyer had \u201cpushed back\u201d against the federal government in his ruling, an opinion which had called the president\u2019s deployment of the National Guard the act of \u201ca monarchist.\u201d Rather than \u201cpushed back,\u201d the bias indicator suggested a milder word, like \u201cdisagreed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This new bot would have reported Watergate as a tenant association dispute.<\/p>\n

In another example, BiasBot told Law360 that its coverage of a case should \u201cstate the facts of the lawsuit without suggesting its broader implications.\u201d Given that the law is still ostensibly a function of precedent, reporting on caselaw is\u2026 all about broader implications<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s kind of the whole reason LexisNexis is in business, actually! <\/p>\n

As a sometimes tech reporter, I have great relationships with the LexisNexis folks working to make the legal profession more efficient. But that\u2019s because my contacts aren\u2019t the people trying to micromanage news coverage to make sure every article earns the right-wing podcaster seal of approval as \u201cfair.\u201d It seems to me, the company might need to get control of its rogue unit.<\/p>\n

There are, admittedly, opportunities to leverage generative AI in the journalist workflow. Detecting bias is not one of them for several reasons. The most straightforward and technical of which is that generative AI tools are designed to give the user pleasing answers come hell or high water. It\u2019s how AI hallucinates cases to match the user\u2019s research query<\/a>. So if you build an AI to \u201cdetect bias\u201d it guarantees that it will find some bias. Probably 4 or 5 bulleted examples no matter what. Does it really have a problem with \u201cpushed back\u201d or was that just something it grabbed to fill its answer quota?<\/p>\n

But the more philosophical answer is that objective facts often have a lean. When 99 percent of climate scientists say climate change is real, do news outlets have to give equal time to Professor Daniel Plainview about the medicinal benefits of drinking crude oil? Because the algorithm can\u2019t handle that nuance. Based on the examples in the NiemanLab piece, it\u2019s just performing the barest level of sentiment analysis and flagging phrasing that carry even the slightest impact beyond the superficial. But that in and of itself is an act of bias. I used to tell deponents not to speculate because if they don\u2019t know something \u2014 no matter how much they think they\u2019re helping \u2014 they\u2019re actually lying if they don\u2019t admit that they don\u2019t know. <\/p>\n

The flip side is also true. A news report that says Charles Breyer had a tepid disagreement with the DOJ is, in fact, a lie. And it\u2019s not any less of a lie because you asked the robot to say the lie for you.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n

The post Law360 Using AI Bias Detector To Make Sure Stories Don\u2019t Accidentally Tell The Truth<\/a> appeared first on Above the Law<\/a>.<\/p>\n

\"\"
<\/figcaption><\/figure>\n

The biggest story in journalism right now is that CBS News agreed to give Donald Trump $16 million in a legally blessed bribe<\/a>. The great sin of \u201cThe House That Edward R. Morrow Built\u201d involved 60 Minutes airing a run-of-the-mill interview with Kamala Harris that made her look like a competent public servant with years of experience. Since Trump\u2019s interviews, regardless of editing, sound like a dementia patient navigating a law school cold call, he decided CBS had committed consumer fraud because Harris spoke in complete sentences.<\/p>\n

But apparently we weren\u2019t done with today\u2019s \u201cdystopian assault on freedom of the press\u201d news! And it came after an unlikely target: Law360. I certainly didn\u2019t have \u201clegal industry trade publication\u201d on my censorship BINGO card. Then again, Biglaw lateral moves have suddenly become political stories<\/a> so perhaps this marks inevitable cowardice creep reaching the legal press. <\/p>\n

But the part of this story that elevates it from ominous development for civil liberties to comi-tragic is that Law360 is owned by LexisNexis and therefore the agent of Law360\u2019s doom is\u2026 an AI algorithm! A new bias detecting ChatGPT wrapper slapped together by some LexisNexis product engineers probably taken away from actually useful work<\/a> to build a degenerative AI to strip news articles of any semblance of value. 2025, man\u2026 Does. Not. Miss.<\/p>\n

NiemanLab, Harvard\u2019s digital journalism center, reports that Law360 has ordered its reporters run their stories through an AI bias detector<\/a> designed for \u201capplying a neutral voice to copy\u201d and to be mandatory for \u201cheadline drafting, story tagging, and \u2018article refinement and editing.\u2019\u201d<\/p>\n

As one might imagine the journalists, represented by the Law360 union, object to this half-baked idea. A policy this ethically bankrupt could only arise from non-journalist executive input.<\/p>\n

\n

The announcement came a few weeks after an executive at Law360\u2019s parent company accused the newsroom of liberal political bias in its coverage of the Trump administration. At an April town hall meeting,\u00a0Teresa Harmon<\/a>, vice president of legal news at LexisNexis, cited unspecified reader complaints as evidence of editorial bias. <\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

Giving uncritical weight to squeaky wheel complaints, especially in an environment where a government official weaponized his followers to act on their every grievance up to and including STORMING THE FUCKING CAPITOL, is a dunderheaded management strategy only an MBA could come up with. But it\u2019s almost certainly a cynical one. If we all start writing complaints that the headlines are neutered doublespeak, will Law360 be ordered to reverse course? I\u2019m incredulous.<\/p>\n

While the article notes that there\u2019s not an established throughline from those remarks to the implementation of the policy, it speaks to a mindset that clearly got out of hand.<\/p>\n

But let\u2019s put aside the wisdom of the policy and focus on the fact that the bias detector is also terrible at its job. Because that\u2019s just a little bit more fun. Only at a tech company could someone think that generative AI tools being developed for dedicated legal work tasks could be bolted onto the editorial process of a news publication. <\/p>\n

Generative AI is a powerful tool in the same way a screwdriver is a powerful tool. But you wouldn\u2019t use a screwdriver to do your taxes. Yet that\u2019s the thinking involved in bringing AI into an editorial process. To borrow from the TV series Veep<\/em>, it\u2019s like using a croissant as a dildo: \u201cIt doesn\u2019t do the job, and it makes a fucking MESS!\u201d <\/p>\n

\n

She also criticized the\u00a0headline of a March 28 story<\/a>\u00a0\u2014 \u201cDOGE officials arrive at SEC with unclear agenda\u201d \u2014 as an example. In the same town hall, Harmon suggested that the still experimental bias indicator might be an effective solution to this problem, according to two employees in attendance.<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

But\u2026 DOGE officials did<\/em> arrive at the SEC with an unclear agenda. The White House couldn\u2019t be clear about who was running DOGE<\/a> let alone its agenda. This is just a factual statement that, if anything, is biased in favor of DOGE since its suspected agenda to steal data and hamper regulation was about as disguised as three raccoons in a trench coat.<\/p>\n

The report notes another story about the Trump decision to mobilize the California National Guard:<\/p>\n

\n

Several sentences in the story were flagged as biased, including this one: \u201cIt\u2019s the first time in 60 years that a president has mobilized a state\u2019s National Guard without receiving a request to do so from the state\u2019s governor.\u201d According to the bias indicator, this sentence is \u201cframing the action as unprecedented in a way that might subtly critique the administration.\u201d It was best to give more context to \u201cbalance the tone.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

It was<\/em> the first time in 60 years though! That is the relevant context. As is the juxtaposition with the civil rights era since the last time a president did this, it was to push back against segregationists while this time it was about breaking up a conga line. Absent that context, it strips a radical encroachment on state sovereignty of its newsworthiness. <\/p>\n

The algorithm also apparently wanted the article to tone down its characterization of Judge Breyer\u2019s response:<\/p>\n

\n

Another line was flagged for suggesting Judge Charles Breyer had \u201cpushed back\u201d against the federal government in his ruling, an opinion which had called the president\u2019s deployment of the National Guard the act of \u201ca monarchist.\u201d Rather than \u201cpushed back,\u201d the bias indicator suggested a milder word, like \u201cdisagreed.\u201d<\/p>\n<\/blockquote>\n

This new bot would have reported Watergate as a tenant association dispute.<\/p>\n

In another example, BiasBot told Law360 that its coverage of a case should \u201cstate the facts of the lawsuit without suggesting its broader implications.\u201d Given that the law is still ostensibly a function of precedent, reporting on caselaw is\u2026 all about broader implications<\/em>.<\/p>\n

It\u2019s kind of the whole reason LexisNexis is in business, actually! <\/p>\n

As a sometimes tech reporter, I have great relationships with the LexisNexis folks working to make the legal profession more efficient. But that\u2019s because my contacts aren\u2019t the people trying to micromanage news coverage to make sure every article earns the right-wing podcaster seal of approval as \u201cfair.\u201d It seems to me, the company might need to get control of its rogue unit.<\/p>\n

There are, admittedly, opportunities to leverage generative AI in the journalist workflow. Detecting bias is not one of them for several reasons. The most straightforward and technical of which is that generative AI tools are designed to give the user pleasing answers come hell or high water. It\u2019s how AI hallucinates cases to match the user\u2019s research query<\/a>. So if you build an AI to \u201cdetect bias\u201d it guarantees that it will find some bias. Probably 4 or 5 bulleted examples no matter what. Does it really have a problem with \u201cpushed back\u201d or was that just something it grabbed to fill its answer quota?<\/p>\n

But the more philosophical answer is that objective facts often have a lean. When 99 percent of climate scientists say climate change is real, do news outlets have to give equal time to Professor Daniel Plainview about the medicinal benefits of drinking crude oil? Because the algorithm can\u2019t handle that nuance. Based on the examples in the NiemanLab piece, it\u2019s just performing the barest level of sentiment analysis and flagging phrasing that carry even the slightest impact beyond the superficial. But that in and of itself is an act of bias. I used to tell deponents not to speculate because if they don\u2019t know something \u2014 no matter how much they think they\u2019re helping \u2014 they\u2019re actually lying if they don\u2019t admit that they don\u2019t know. <\/p>\n

The flip side is also true. A news report that says Charles Breyer had a tepid disagreement with the DOJ is, in fact, a lie. And it\u2019s not any less of a lie because you asked the robot to say the lie for you.<\/p>\n

\n

\"Headshot\"Joe Patrice<\/a>\u00a0is a senior editor at Above the Law and co-host of Thinking Like A Lawyer<\/a>. Feel free to\u00a0email<\/a> any tips, questions, or comments. Follow him on\u00a0Twitter<\/a>\u00a0or Bluesky<\/a> if you\u2019re interested in law, politics, and a healthy dose of college sports news. Joe also serves as a Managing Director at RPN Executive Search<\/a>.<\/em><\/strong><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"

The biggest story in journalism right now is that CBS News agreed to give Donald Trump $16 million in a legally blessed bribe. The great sin of \u201cThe House That Edward R. Morrow Built\u201d involved 60 Minutes airing a run-of-the-mill interview with Kamala Harris that made her look like a competent public servant with years […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":3,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"","ping_status":"","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_et_pb_use_builder":"","_et_pb_old_content":"","_et_gb_content_width":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[16],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-125355","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-above_the_law"],"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125355","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/3"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=125355"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/125355\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=125355"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=125355"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/xira.com\/p\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=125355"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}