News Article Critical Lens: Read News Like a Media Analyst
Analyze news articles for hooks vs substance, source credibility, framing, missing context, and follow-up questions.
Hook vs Substance
Every news article has two layers: the hook (why you’re reading it today) and the substance (the actual information). Learning to read news critically AI-assisted means separating these layers.
The hook is what makes something “news” — conflict, drama, surprise, scandal, celebrity, crisis. Journalists are trained to lead with the hook because it captures attention. But the hook often distorts the substance.
A headline like “CEO Resigns Amid Scandal” has a powerful hook. But the substance might be: CEO planned retirement months ago, “scandal” was a minor compliance issue already resolved. The hook creates urgency and emotion. The substance is routine.
PR041 asks: “What’s the news hook vs. the actual substance?” This forces you to notice the difference. Once you see the pattern, you can’t unsee it.
Source Analysis
Who’s quoted matters as much as what’s said. Analyze news article credibility by evaluating sources:
Named experts vs “sources say”: Anonymous sources can be necessary for sensitive stories, but they’re also easy to fabricate or misrepresent. Named, credentialed experts are more trustworthy.
Primary vs aggregated: Is this outlet doing original reporting, or summarizing what another outlet reported? Aggregation loses nuance and can introduce errors.
Conflicts of interest: Is the expert quoted because they’re knowledgeable, or because they have a stake in a particular narrative? Industry spokespeople are not neutral.
What’s NOT sourced: Claims presented as fact without attribution are red flags. “Experts agree…” “Studies show…” Without specifics, these are editorial assertions disguised as evidence.
When AI analyzes sources, ask follow-up: “What would a skeptical reader want to verify independently?” This identifies the weakest links in the source chain.
Framing Analysis
News framing is how a story is positioned. The same facts can support very different narratives depending on what’s emphasized, what’s downplayed, what vocabulary is used, and what context is included or excluded.
Example: A protest. One outlet: “Peaceful demonstrators demand change.” Another: “Crowds disrupt traffic, businesses.” Same event, different frames. Neither is lying — but each selects facts that fit a narrative.
PR041 asks: “What’s the framing, and how might it differ elsewhere?” This trains you to see the editorial choices behind what appears to be neutral reporting.
What’s NOT in an article often matters more than what is. Historical background, alternative explanations, dissenting views, industry context — journalists can’t include everything. PR041 asks what context is missing so you know what to look up yourself.
The Prompt in Practice
PR041 generates five outputs for any news article:
1. Hook vs substance: Separates the attention-grabbing element from the actual information.
2. Source credibility: Evaluates who’s quoted and what their reliability is.
3. Missing context: Identifies what background would change your interpretation.
4. Framing analysis: Shows how the story is positioned and how alternatives might differ.
5. Follow-up questions: Suggests what to investigate further before forming opinions.
Use this for important or controversial news. The overhead isn’t worth it for routine stories, but for anything that might influence your beliefs or decisions, the 2-minute analysis pays dividends.
For deeper bias detection, see the Critical Reading pillar. For the full prompt ecosystem, explore the AI for Reading hub.
Frequently Asked Questions
Practice Critical Analysis
365 articles across genres — train your critical reading skills on diverse, challenging content.
Start Learning →Try It on Today’s News
Pick an important story, paste it into PR041, and see the analysis. Train the mental framework that separates informed readers from passive consumers.
AI Reading Prompts Library
