Not sure what a word means in SideBySide? You're in the right place. No jargon, no lectures — just plain definitions.
The article mostly supports or defends the topic. It tends to highlight the good parts and downplay problems.
Example: An article about a new law that mainly quotes people who think it'll help.
The article mostly criticizes or pushes back on the topic. It focuses on risks, harms, or what's going wrong.
Example: An article about the same law that mainly quotes people warning it'll backfire.
Shows both sides — some good, some bad. The author is weighing pros and cons rather than pushing one view.
Hard to tell where the author stands. The piece mostly reports facts without taking a side.
Words chosen to make you feel something — anger, fear, sympathy — instead of just informing you. Often a sign of bias.
Example: "Slammed", "destroyed", "brave heroes", "radical extremists" — they push emotion before facts.
The angle the writer chooses. Two articles can describe the same event with completely different framings.
Example: One calls it a 'protest', another calls it a 'riot' — same event, different framing.
How the article 'sounds' — calm, angry, sarcastic, dramatic, neutral. Tone shapes how you feel about the topic, separate from the facts.
Does the article tell you where its info came from? Named experts, linked studies, and quoted documents = high transparency.
How much real proof backs up the claims — data, studies, official records — versus opinion or speculation.
How much the article tries to make you feel something. Very high intensity often means the author wants to persuade more than inform.
The points that both sides actually agree on, even when they argue about everything else. A great place to start a conversation.
How people who disagree with this article would frame the same story. SideBySide finds these alternative views automatically.
The strongest, most charitable version of an argument — the opposite of a strawman. Useful for understanding why thoughtful people might disagree with you.
Example: Even if you disagree with a position, can you state it so well that someone who holds it would say 'yes, that's exactly what I think'?
Comparing two specific articles directly — what they each claim, where they disagree, and what they share.
A consistent lean in one direction. Everyone has some bias — the goal isn't to find 'unbiased' news, it's to know which way each source leans so you can balance it out.