This. This. This.

I'll throw in a few other ideas:

1. 'Opinion' panels should come from both sides of the political isle. Thoughtful panelists should be able to get to the bottom of ideas (instead of getting caught up in partisan minutiae). If they can't have a good discussion they shouldn't be on the panel.

2. Recommendation algorithms _must_ attempt to diversify a user's taste rather than silo them. This is an ethical issue and may hurt the bottom line.

3. Journalists should fundamentally believe bare facts speak for themselves and trust their readership to make the right conclusions. It is patronizing to have it any other way.

4. Context is key - sound bytes and cheap twitter drama are destroying journalistic integrity. Journalism is archaeology of the now. It should be treated with the rigor of a science. Have some respect for yourselves and we will do the same!

> Journalists should fundamentally believe bare facts speak for themselves and trust their readership to make the right conclusions.

I don't even mind someone spelling out the conclusion for me, as long as the article contains links to original sources so that I can verify it. But even that is rare. Most links in an article point to other articles written by the same newspaper.

As an example, suppose a newspaper writes an article about something related to Wikipedia. I would expect to see the word "Wikipedia" hyperlinked in the article many times, but none of those links would actually lead to Wikipedia; they would lead to random other articles of the same newspaper that happen to mention Wikipedia. It would be probably impossible to get to Wikipedia from the news article by merely following hyperlinks.

The problem is, if they just repeat the claim verbatim, and it's about a complex topic (such as election interference or vote rigging), how is the reader supposed to actually make a decision on the topic, without doing weeks of investigation on their own? Shouldn't it be the media's job to analyze the claims and then inform the reader if they're valid or not?

Aren't you then arguing that is explicitly the media's job to manufacture consent among the public, according to the interests of their shareholders? If so, I would agree that that is frequently the role of a journalist.

No, that is not what I am arguing. I'm saying that part of reporting claims by public figures is also providing the context of the claims made, so that the reader can make decisions with more information than just the claim (since the claim itself usually does not have enough information to make a decision).

Also, just an FYI, your comment didn't feel like it was written in good faith when I first read it. I had to actively suppress my bad faith detector to write my reply. Just feedback for future comments.

Except those aren't example of manipulative language as they're factual descriptions of the claims. If I say the sky is made of honey without any evidence to back my claim and you report on my statement describing it as having no evidence, you've done nothing wrong. Your description of my statement is not using superfluous adjectives.

Anyone making a claim of fact needs to be prepared to back it up. Far too many people game the media by making absurd claims knowing their claims will simply be reported verbatim. Accurately reporting a claim is presented without evidence or is repeating a previously debunked statement is a necessary counter against people making absurd factual claims.

There's a clear dividing line between making statement claiming fact and a statement of opinion. If I tell you I think the sky is made of honey I may be factually incorrect but I'm not claiming to be making a factual statement.

Claims of fact deserve much more scrutiny than opinions. You're entitled to any opinion you want but you are not entitled to your own facts. When your claims of facts pose a material danger to persons or simply the rule of law, especially when they come from people with a wide audience or power, they deserve even more scrutiny than some Joe Shmoe.

The real world doesn’t work like that and facts and opinions are almost always a mixed bucket. What you consider evidence or fact is not what someone else does. Implicitly there is a possibility any claim is wrong with a normal title, but some titles and articles bias the user. If you titled an article “Giantrobot claims those aren’t examples of manipulative language” that’s fine but if the same article was titled “Without evidence, giantrobot claims those aren’t examples of manipulative language” then that is bias. Because your level of what constitutes fact, opinion, and evidence is different from everyone else’s. Another example: What is evidence someone was in a specific room at a specific time? Someone seeing someone come out of it? Seeing someone with an item that came from the room? Someone else saw someone come out? Or do you yourself need to physically see it? There are just so many levels. In your example of the sky made of honey, don’t you think without evidence isn’t needed at all to let someone understand the facts. Isn’t allowing the claim to speak for itself do the same job.

First, bias happens. A journalist should aim to be objective but they are not saints of objectivity. Second, it's not unreasonable to editorialize a little bit when discussing statements that appear to a reasonable person to be made in bad faith or are self serving. If I routinely made claims of fact about the honey-like nature of the heavens despite frequent demonstrations of my claims' absurdity and falseness, it would not at all be unreasonable or "biased" to point out a priori that I still had not produced any evidence of my claims. It's certainly not unreasonable if I run late night TV commercials asking for money from pensioners to launch a mission to collect sky honey.

As for evidence of an event occurring, you'll also notice journalists go out of their way to second source statements of facts. They want first-hand accounts from named sources in order to put an identity and reputation up for scrutiny. Ideally they also want a second named source but failing that they will often accept unnamed sources (to whom the journalist knows the identity but does not publicly reveal it). This is a common practice specifically because journalists are rarely in the room when and where events occur.

I just wanted to chime in and say how unbelievably refreshing it is to see someone acknowledge this out loud. It seems like people typically ingest "news media" without much critical thought and repeat news headlines with total ignorance of the subjective or manipulative slant that the news outlet applies to the material. I imagine a lot of the manipulative wording is not even intentional, either, but I'm not sure that makes this any better. :\

"Without evidence" is state of fact, that is not manipulative. Also, if something was debunked multiple times already and is in fact conspiracy theory, it is perfectly appropriate to call it "debunked conspiracy theory".

What calling these manipulative and refusing these as statements does is that it biases writing towards claims without evidence and towards conspiracy theories. Because you dont allow writer to call them what they are.

> It prejudices the reader without giving the reader a chance to even consider the claims or theory.

Note that many without evidence behind them and conspiracy theories have claims that in isolation sounds ok. It is only when you check evidence and find that there is none you know to reject that.

For clarification, how do you say Trump has claimed without evidence the election was rigged, without it being manipulative? This is precisely what Trump did and has done for the last three election. He has made claims without evidence, baseless and any “evidence” that backs it up is debunked.

This is actually exactly what I’m talking about, these news agencies are reporting accurately the events. And you don’t like it.