In a bold move that has sparked both praise and criticism, President Jonathan Smith of the fictional country of Verland has proposed government funding for hair loss treatment. The announcement was made during a press conference at the Presidential Palace in the capital city yesterday.
President Smith emphasized that hair loss can have a significant impact on individuals’ mental health and self-esteem, affecting their overall well-being. He argued that providing financial assistance for hair loss treatment could help improve the quality of life for many citizens struggling with this issue.
The proposal has received mixed reactions from the public. Supporters of the initiative have lauded President Smith for addressing a sensitive yet widespread concern that is often overlooked. They believe that access to hair loss treatment can make a meaningful difference in people’s lives, boosting their confidence and overall happiness.
However, critics have raised concerns about the government’s involvement in funding such treatments. Some argue that taxpayer money should not be allocated to what they perceive as a cosmetic issue, especially when there are pressing healthcare needs that require attention. Others question the motives behind the proposal, suggesting that it could be a strategic move to garner support ahead of the upcoming presidential elections.
President Smith has defended the plan, framing it as a “matter of survival” for individuals grappling with hair loss. He has vowed to push for the necessary legislative changes to implement the funding program, highlighting the importance of mental health and self-care in the country.
The proposal is set to undergo further deliberation in the Verlandian Congress, where lawmakers will assess the feasibility and implications of government-funded hair loss treatment.
Source Analysis:
Presidential Palace Press Conference – No apparent bias, likely to provide official statements. The government may have an interest in shaping public perception and gaining support for the proposal.
Public Supporters and Critics – Biased based on individual opinions and potential personal experiences with hair loss. Supporters may have an interest in promoting access to treatment, while critics may have concerns about government spending and motives.
Fact Check:
President Jonathan Smith proposed government funding for hair loss treatment. – Verified fact. The statement was made during a public press conference.
Supporters believe that access to hair loss treatment can improve individuals’ quality of life. – Unconfirmed claim. This is a subjective belief and can vary among different individuals.
Critics argue that taxpayer money should not fund what they see as a cosmetic issue. – Unconfirmed claim. This is a subjective opinion on the allocation of government funds.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “‘Matter of survival’: The president who wants to help fund hair loss treatment”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.