Try this:

>I'd like to point out that CoastalCoder wrote this comment. Take that for what you will.

See? Highlighting with this phrasing aligns exactly with your definition. The framing is defaulting to negative-neutral.

I don't think this is a case of dog-whistling, because AFAICT the author isn't trying to conceal his point.

I.e., he intends every reader to recognize that he's saying that the publisher might be biased. He's not being explicit about what that bias is, but presumably he expects curious readers to look into it themselves.

It's flawed (by your own definition) to say that just because you don't detect a dogwhistle that it's not a dogwhistle.

>the author isn't trying to conceal his point

False. The parent asked you to draw your own conclusions!

To me, all these new terms that have no actual meaning to what they are trying to describe is very annoying. Terms like "phishing", "gaslighting", "bike shedding", "yak shaving", "dog whistle", "gatekeeping" are extremely confusing to understand because there's no direct connection to what they are trying to imply. You literally have to memorize what it means and it's generally unguessable.

Terms like these are often not intended to be understood from just context. They're short references to complex topics that it is assumed the listener is already comfortable with, and will need to be explained if they are not. Just like understanding technical terminology improves your ability to share complex ideas in a technical space, political/social terminology improves your ability to share complex ideas in the social space.

That's what language is though.

Think of the word melancholy it has a complex definition and connotations but how could you guess what that means.