Hmm. Its interesting to hear a different view but I can't agree. Language has tremendous power and using it to signal to the reader whether they should approve of something in what might claim to be objective factual reporting is quite insidious to me.

I strongly dislike the "journalism using colorful words" and China comparison as a defence of deception and manipulation. Our standards should be higher. Plenty of room for colour with good quality writing.

(edit: just to clarify the article is question raised my spin flags but only to a level that is within the lazy-writing/unconscious-bias zone too)

The original post said this was an example "western media bias", my comparison to Chinese media was to diffuse that point.

Journalists who write in the manner you prescribe don't last long if they exist at all. No one wants to read such sanitized drivel.