> Framing this analysis as "subtle manipulations" is disingenuous regardless of how flawed/biased news analysis may be, which is about as flawed/biased as any analysis can be.

But it is subtle manipulation. How many articles have you read about failing schools or school funding challenges, and how often have they mentioned that the U.S. spends among the most in the world per student for K-12 education? As you say, presenting news without context or analysis isn't journalism. But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views.

> But the minute you start picking facts for context, or analyzing the facts, you're inherently incorporating your personal views.

That's not "subtle manipulation", that's bias. Calling it "subtle manipulation" disingenuously implies that journalists unscrupulously distort or change the news. Context & analysis is inherently biased, no surprises there, but you're approaching substance-free cynicism when you say stuff like "Journalists don't believe it's their job to talk about why something may or may not work, but they really want to."

Journalists are qualified in nothing and can't possibly have any weight on the question of whether something will or will not work. That's why they always speak through experts. Why would anyone care what a journalist thinks? Their job is to journal, not tell people what to do.

They don't tell people what to do. Even your example doesn't show journalists telling people what to do or show them sharing their personal thoughts on the matter. Journalists are qualified in reporting, which includes collecting, analyzing/contextualizing, and presenting relevant new facts, which is exactly what they are correctly doing when using your common library of phrases. Naturally, such reporting is prone to bias, and you may not agree with what is presented, but that isn't the same as "subtle manipulation", and it isn't the same as telling people what to do or think.