News media often strive to minimize explicit moral language in news articles, yet most articles are dense with moral values as expressed through the reported events themselves. However, values that are reflected in the intricate dynamics among *participating entities* and *moral events* are far more challenging for most NLP systems to detect, including LLMs. To study this phenomenon, we annotate a new dataset, **MORAL EVENTS**, consisting of 5,494 structured event annotations on 474 news articles by diverse US media across the political spectrum. We further propose **MOKA**, a moral event extraction framework with **MO**ral **K**nowledge **A**ugmentation, which leverages knowledge derived from moral words and moral scenarios to produce structural representations of morality-bearing events. Experiments show that **MOKA** outperforms competitive baselines across three moral event understanding tasks. Further analysis shows even ostensibly nonpartisan media engage in the selective reporting of moral events.

Ideology is at the core of political science research. Yet, there still does not exist general-purpose tools to characterize and predict ideology across different genres of text. To this end, we study Pretrained Language Models using novel ideology-driven pretraining objectives that rely on the comparison of articles on the same story written by media of different ideologies. We further collect a large-scale dataset, consisting of more than 3.6M political news articles, for pretraining. Our model POLITICS outperforms strong baselines and the previous state-of-the-art models on ideology prediction and stance detection tasks. Further analyses show that POLITICS is especially good at understanding long or formally written texts, and is also robust in few-shot learning scenarios.

Prior work on ideology prediction has largely focused on single modalities, i.e., text or images. In this work, we introduce the task of multimodal ideology prediction, where a model predicts binary or five-point scale ideological leanings, given a text-image pair with political content. We first collect five new large-scale datasets with English documents and images along with their ideological leanings, covering news articles from a wide range of mainstream media in US and social media posts from Reddit and Twitter. We conduct in-depth analyses on news articles and reveal differences in image content and usage across the political spectrum. Furthermore, we perform extensive experiments and ablation studies, demonstrating the effectiveness of targeted pretraining objectives on different model components. Our best-performing model, a late-fusion architecture pretrained with a triplet objective over multimodal content, outperforms the state-of-the-art text-only model by almost 4% and a strong multimodal baseline with no pretraining by over 3%.

Stance detection is typically framed as predicting the sentiment in a given text towards a target entity. However, this setup overlooks the importance of the source entity, i.e., who is expressing the opinion. In this paper, we emphasize the imperative need for studying interactions among entities when inferring stances. We first introduce a new task, entity-to-entity (E2E) stance detection, which primes models to identify entities in their canonical names and discern stances jointly. To support this study, we curate a new dataset with 10,641 annotations labeled at the sentence level from news articles of different ideological leanings. We present a novel generative framework to allow the generation of canonical names for entities as well as stances among them. We further enhance the model with a graph encoder to summarize entity activities and external knowledge surrounding the entities. Experiments show that our model outperforms strong comparisons by large margins. Further analyses demonstrate the usefulness of E2E stance detection for understanding media quotation and stance landscape as well as inferring entity ideology.

Natural language inference (NLI) is the task of determining whether a piece of text is entailed, contradicted by or unrelated to another piece of text. In this paper, we investigate how to tease systematic inferences (i.e., items for which people agree on the NLI label) apart from disagreement items (i.e., items which lead to different annotations), which most prior work has overlooked. To distinguish systematic inferences from disagreement items, we propose Artificial Annotators (AAs) to simulate the uncertainty in the annotation process by capturing the modes in annotations. Results on the CommitmentBank, a corpus of naturally occurring discourses in English, confirm that our approach performs statistically significantly better than all baselines. We further show that AAs learn linguistic patterns and context-dependent reasoning.

We present a large, challenging dataset, COUGH, for COVID-19 FAQ retrieval. Similar to a standard FAQ dataset, COUGH consists of three parts: FAQ Bank, Query Bank and Relevance Set. The FAQ Bank contains ~16K FAQ items scraped from 55 credible websites (e.g., CDC and WHO). For evaluation, we introduce Query Bank and Relevance Set, where the former contains 1,236 human-paraphrased queries while the latter contains ~32 human-annotated FAQ items for each query. We analyze COUGH by testing different FAQ retrieval models built on top of BM25 and BERT, among which the best model achieves 48.8 under P@5, indicating a great challenge presented by COUGH and encouraging future research for further improvement. Our COUGH dataset is available at https://github.com/sunlab-osu/covid-faq.