A Media-Literacy Feature
Read the Fine Print
A decoder for the language news uses when it wants to imply something it can't prove. Each entry takes one phrase or trick, shows what it sounds like next to what it actually means, and gives you the one question to ask. Consider the Source tells you who's talking. This tells you how.
:The Decodes
“Can [X] cause [Y]?”
When a health headline asks a question, the answer is almost always "no."
A warning that X is dangerous.
→ The article almost always answers its own question — "no," or "we don't know" — paragraphs down, where most people never reach.
Decode →“Links to”
It sounds like evidence. It isn't.
Proof that someone was involved.
→ Any connection at all — attending the same event, sharing a school, a single "like." There's no required degree of connection.
Decode →“Ties to”
Same energy as “links to” — zero specificity.
A real, documented relationship.
→ Some association the writer won’t define — donor, employee, a shared board, a handshake in 2009. The strength of the tie is exactly what gets left out.
Decode →“Sources say”
Anonymous and unverifiable — “sources” can be one person with an agenda.
Several independent people confirmed this.
→ Could be a single anonymous source. “Sources” (plural) is sometimes one person plus the spokesperson who repeated them.
Decode →“Failed to respond”
Implies guilt — but sometimes the deadline was 20 minutes ago.
They’re hiding something; they had no answer.
→ They didn’t reply by the writer’s deadline — which might have been minutes, the wrong inbox, or a holiday weekend.
Decode →“Raised questions”
Who raised them? Often the reporter — sometimes one person.
A real controversy is building.
→ Someone has posed a question — frequently the writer, or a single critic. A question is not a finding.
Decode →“Some are saying”
The oldest trick in the book — unnamed “some” can be almost no one.
A view widespread enough to report.
→ The writer wants to introduce a claim no one has to stand behind. “Some” can be two accounts online — or rhetorical.
Decode →“Controversial”
Often just means someone, somewhere, complained.
Seriously and widely disputed.
→ There’s objection — but the word measures nothing about how much, from whom, or whether it’s warranted.
Decode →“Amid concerns”
Whose concerns? Never specified.
A backdrop of legitimate, widespread worry.
→ Mood-setting. “Amid” attaches an event to an unnamed anxiety without claiming the two are actually related.
Decode →“Officials say”
Which officials? From where? On the record?
Authoritative confirmation from the people in charge.
→ Someone with a title said it — rank, agency, and whether they’re named or anonymous all left blank.
Decode →“Is believed to”
Believed by whom? The grammar hides the source.
An established, widely accepted fact.
→ Someone believes it — the sentence deletes who, so no one is accountable for the claim or its basis.
Decode →:The Watchlist
Phrases we’re decoding next. Same family — sounds factual, proves nothing.
“Reportedly”
Attribution with the source quietly removed.
“Slammed”
Manufactured-conflict verb. Usually just means “criticized.”
“Sparks outrage”
Outrage measured in posts, not people.
“Studies show”
Which studies? How many? Funded by whom?
“Experts warn”
Which experts? A warning isn’t a consensus.
“Allegedly”
Legally necessary — rhetorically, a wink.