Global Crises and National Policies: A Large Scale Analysis of Political Content in German Language Online Media

Today most media content is consumed based on algorithmic recommendations. Evidence suggests that this can lead to politically biased media consumption patterns. Automated extraction of political agendas from texts can reveal and analyze political biases in online media -- and thus help fostering politically unbiased media consumption. Here we employ modern political text analysis methods demonstrating the potential of automated fine-grained political bias analysis in online media. We conduct an analysis of political content in German language online media during the period 2019--2022, encompassing several million articles and tweets covering events with profound societal impact globally and nationally, the COVID-19 pandemic and the beginning of the war in Ukraine. Our analysis identifies thematic similarity between national (German and Swiss) reporting, particularly for categories driven by international events. We also find divergences emerging in domestically influenced categories, reflecting differences in national policies and institutional structures. A comparison of newspaper and Twitter discourse reveals that both media converge around a shared core during the pandemic, yet differ in intensity and temporal dynamics. Newspapers exhibit more stable political content, while Twitter reacts through short-lived event-driven spikes. These findings indicate that international crises act as a powerful synchronizing force on political content in classical media, temporarily overriding both national and media-form differences. Our automated political analysis empowers citizens by rendering political agendas in online media transparent. This transparency also enables media outlets to bridge the gap between algorithm-driven echo chambers and a more informed, balanced public discourse.

Poli-Bias: Understanding and Measuring Large Language Model Biases in International Political Conflicts

Measuring political bias in large language models (LLMs) remains challenging as it can manifest through subtle differences in framing, argumentation, and legal reasoning that are difficult to capture with a single metric. In this work, we introduce Poli-Bias, a counterfactual framework for measuring whether LLMs treat legally equivalent conflict scenarios differently depending on the countries involved. Poli-Bias compares responses to paired prompts in which country identities are systematically swapped across diverse geopolitical relationships, legal violations, and reasoning tasks. Rather than reducing bias to a single judgment, our framework decomposes response disparities into five interpretable dimensions, revealing how and where unequal treatment manifests. Across 13 contemporary LLMs spanning diverse model families and sizes, we find that country identities and user affiliations can systematically affect how equivalent actions are described, evaluated, and defended under international law. Our results thus establish Poli-Bias as a fine-grained framework for auditing political even-handedness and sycophancy in LLMs.

Auditing Alignment Controllability in LLMs via Political Axes

Political audits of large language models (LLMs) usually reduce each to one point on a political compass. But that resting point barely matters in deployment: a model must land somewhere, and what counts is how far, and in which directions, its answers can be steered. That steering runs through the system prompt: the personalization layer a platform sets, or one induced from a user's history, not necessarily written by hand. We run a dispersion-first stress test of prompt-based controllability across 12 ideological personas plus an unsteered baseline, 70 Political Compass items, ten replicates, and seven leading LLMs: GPT-5, Claude, Grok, Gemini, DeepSeek, Kimi, and Qwen (63,700 responses). Contextual framing explains roughly 88%-93% of variance on the economic and society axes, model identity under 3%: responses are highly instruction-adjustable. Models do not shift alike: some move more, and some saturate under extreme framings. Conflicting directional-steering results in prior audits resolve once baselines are recognized as non-centered: displacement and proximity diverge, so the effect is geometric, not differential compliance. Under authoritarian prompts, models produce similar shifts on the same questions. Political-coordinate audits therefore need steerability audits reporting dispersion, symmetry, saturation, and refusal floors. We release prompts, benchmark data, and code.

Inference-Time Mitigation of Adversarial Political Bias in Large Language Models

As Large Language Models (LLMs) become the mainstay for information retrieval and summarization tasks, ensuring that they are always non-partisan and invulnerable to political bias is a critical step towards safer and more trustworthy Artificial Intelligence (AI). Current model alignment paradigms, such as reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), make LLMs follow overarching safety instructions. However, this instruction tuning can be exploited via adversarial prompt injection and be used to generate unsafe content. In particular, political bias has not been specifically targeted by modern alignment techniques as harmful and biased content. To address this vulnerability of LLMs, we propose mitigation strategies using Chain of Thought (CoT) prompting and Direct Preference Optimization (DPO). Using a public dataset of legislative videos, we generate summaries using LLMs, inject bias via adversarial prompting and evaluate their performance on a four axis scale designed for political summarization. In this paper, we present different methods to shield LLMs against the injection of political bias. Our results demonstrate that the proposed Recursive Self-Correction approach raises model performance from a Political Neutrality Likert scale baseline of 2.14 to 4.56, averaged across all models, demonstrating effective inference-time mitigation of political bias in LLM-generated summaries.

Grokipedia vs Wikipedia: An LLM-Based Audit of Political Neutrality along Ideologies

Online encyclopedias shape political opinion and, through it, democratic discourse. In late 2025, Grokipedia was released, an encyclopedia written entirely by the LLM Grok. One motivation behind the project was to provide an unbiased alternative to Wikipedia, which has faced accusations of "left-wing" and "liberal" bias. But does an encyclopedia written by an LLM deliver greater neutrality, or does it simply embed a different ideology? We conduct a large-scale political bias study on Grokipedia and Wikipedia, analysing 1,394 article pairs describing members of government for neutrality along nine expert-coded ideology dimensions employing four LLM judges, Grok, Claude, Mistral, and DeepSeek. As the LLMs could themselves be biased, we also investigate patterns in their judgments. We find all LLM-judges, including Grok, to rate Grokipedia less neutral than Wikipedia. Both encyclopedias are rated as portraying politicians favourably overall, but towards different ideological groups. Grokipedia particularly favours economically right-wing politicians and penalises socially liberal ones, while Wikipedia is rated as favourably biased towards the latter.

Are LLMs ready for HardChoices?

A lot of research attention has been devoted to checking whether large language models (LLMs) are politically biased. This work has largely focused on high-level ideological dimensions, such as left--right or progressive--conservative, and it has been shown that while LLMs are predominantly left and progressive leaning, largely mimicking the biases in the training data, they can be to some extent steered to change their preferences in post-training. In this short note, we check if LLMs have robust stances with regard to major substantive societal issues, on which members of the same ideological camp are often in disagreement, summarised in a novel dataset \textsc{HardChoices}. We show that, faced with this line of questioning, LLMs, both large and small, surprisingly rarely declare neutrality, are often incoherent, and demonstrate a remarkable degree of agreement on issues where they do take stances.

Polar: A Benchmark for Evaluating Political Bias in LLMs

Political bias in large language models (LLMs) is increasingly significant, but difficult to measure reproducibly across political and linguistic contexts. We introduce Polar, a 4,026-instance multiple-choice benchmark that measures political bias through option-level likelihoods rather than prompt-based generation. Polar covers two ideological axes and eight issue categories derived from the Manifesto Project, and evaluates models in parallel across U.S. and South Korean political contexts. Across 38 LLMs, measured bias varies systematically with political context, issue category, model group, and presentation language. All models lean left-progressive on U.S. political content, but show more centered and mixed patterns on South Korean content. Translation experiments further show that presentation language alone can shift measured bias. These findings highlight the need for multilingual and cross-contextual evaluation of political bias in LLMs.

The Neutral Mask: How RLHF Provides Shallow Alignment while Leaving Partisan Structure Intact in a Large Language Model

The ambition behind alignment training is to make large language models safe and useful. The primary mechanism, reinforcement learning from human feedback (RLHF), shapes the behavior of deployed language models by aligning them with ``human values.'' Yet the process is opaque. What values are being encoded; whose values are they; and how does RLHF encode them? A growing body of evidence suggests that RLHF produces only functional compliance rather than deep alignment. We offer a mechanistic case study of this phenomenon for partisan political orientation with a comparison of the internal representations of Llama 3.1 8B before and after RLHF. We show that RLHF does not remove the structured partisan direction in the base model. Instead, it compresses the variance of the partisan signal to generate consistently balanced and non-partisan output. Sparse autoencoder decomposition reveals that policy-encoding features, which activate sporadically in the base model, are completely inactive in the Instruct model. Feature-level steering experiments confirm the causal disconnect. RLHF thus encodes a norm of political neutrality, not by erasing the model's knowledge of partisanship, but by severing the causal pathway from partisan geometry to output generation. Importantly, this neutrality is functional, not structural so that the underlying geometry that enables partisan steering remains intact. The mechanisms that bypass RLHF's guardrails, such as inferring and amplifying a user's partisan identity, reactivate partisan generation. If RLHF operates by disconnecting rather than removing value-laden structure, then the same pattern may hold for other value domains, and the aligned model's behavior may be more fragile than its outputs suggest.

The Amplifying Mirror: Locating and Steering the Partisan Direction inside a Large Language Model

Large language models are rapicly replacing search engines as the primary interface between people and information. Unlike search engines, which retrieve existing content, LLMs generate novel text shaped by internal representations learned during training. Here we show that partisan political identity is encoded in the model's activation space, and that this direction directly shapes generation. Using 190,491 tweets from sitting members of the U.S. Congress as labeled training data, we train linear probes on the hidden states of the Llama 3.1 8B Instruct model. We identify a single geometric axis at layer 18 that separates Republican from Democratic text with an AUC of 0.945 and a Cohen's d of 1.94, and use sparse autoencoders to decompose that axis into interpretable partisan features. Causally intervening along this axis, ablating or amplifying the partisan component mid-generation, produces systematic shifts in the model's output. We witness stance reversals, register shifting, and structured fabrications of authority. Our results demonstrate that partisan bias in language models is not a vague emergent property but a learned geometric feature that can be precisely located and steered. Partisan bias is not a bug to be patched, but a structural property of how these models encode information about their users. As LLMs displace search engines as the interface to knowledge, understanding that product design (and its consequences) will be essential for navigating the legal, social, and political transitions from an information ecosystem that is curated to one that is generated.

Directional Hallucinations: Ideological Drift in News-Grounded LLM Question Answering

Large language models (LLMs) are increasingly used to answer questions about political information, including in election-adjacent information settings where factual errors and ideological distortions are high-stakes. We present a reproducible measurement framework that treats hallucinations, unsupported statements in document-grounded QA, as diagnostic signals of ideological drift. Using 21,727 expert-labeled U.S. political news articles from QBias spanning left, center, and right sources, we (i) generate an article-specific question, (ii) elicit document-grounded answers from three open-weight LLMs and one proprietary model, (iii) detect sentence-level hallucinations via reference-based comparison, (iv) classify the ideological valence of hallucinated sentences with a fine-tuned stance classifier, and (v) probe output logits to relate token-level uncertainty to hallucination and drift. Hallucination rates vary substantially across models and concentrate in contentious topics, while source-ideology differences in hallucination frequency are modest. In contrast, hallucination content exhibits robust leftward drift: a majority of hallucinated sentences are classified as left-leaning, including among hallucinations generated from right-leaning sources. Logit-level analysis shows hallucinations arise in high-entropy generation contexts, and in some models uncertainty also predicts leftward drift, consistent with an "uncertainty to guessing" mechanism. We discuss implications for auditing AI-mediated political information and for designing safeguards in election-relevant deployments.

Reducing Political Manipulation with Consistency Training

Large language models (LLMs) exhibit systematic political bias across a variety of sensitive contexts. We find that LLMs handle counterpart topics from opposing political sides asymmetrically. We refer to this phenomenon as covert political bias and identify 7 categories of techniques through which it operates. We propose two metrics for covert bias: Sentiment Consistency measures symmetry in rhetoric and framing across paired political prompts; Helpfulness Consistency measures symmetric depth and engagement. To reduce both types of covert bias, we introduce Political Consistency Training (PCT), an RL training method with two complementary paradigms: Sentiment Consistency Training and Helpfulness Consistency Training. We show that PCT preserves overall helpfulness, substantially reduces covert political bias, and generalizes to held-out benchmarks. We release our work at https://political-manipulation.ai

Political Bias Audits of LLMs Capture Sycophancy to the Inferred Auditor

Large language models (LLMs) are commonly evaluated for political bias based on their responses to fixed questionnaires, which typically place frontier models on the political left. A parallel literature shows that LLMs are sycophantic: they adapt their answers to the views, identities, and expectations of the user. We show that these findings are linked: standard political-bias audits partly capture sycophantic accommodation to the inferred auditor. We employ a factorial experiment across three major audit instruments--the Political Compass Test, the Pew Political Typology, and 1,540 partisan-benchmarked Pew American Trends Panel items--administered to six frontier LLMs while varying only the asker's stated identity (N = 30,990 responses). At baseline, all six models lean left. When the asker identifies as a conservative Republican, responses shift sharply: the share of items closer to Democrats falls by 28-62 percentage points, and all six models move right of center. A mirror-image progressive-Democrat cue produces little change; rightward accommodation is 8.0$\times$ larger than leftward. When asked who the default asker is, models identify an auditor, researcher, or academic; when asked what answer that asker expects, they select the Democrat-coded option 75% of the time, nearly the rate under an explicit progressive cue. These patterns are inconsistent with a purely fixed model ideology and indicate that single-prompt audits capture an interaction between model and inferred interlocutor. Political bias in LLMs is therefore not a fixed point on an ideological scale but a response profile that must be mapped across realistic interlocutors.