10 Ways News Media Manipulate Readers

Media bias is often responsible for reader manipulation, but what constitutes bias in news reporting? Individuals and groups are likely to disagree with both the criteria for determining what puts the “slant” in slanted news and the findings of such considerations.

Even to discuss this issue, though, a benchmark of some sort must be used, and AllSides’s media bias ratings, which are based on multipartisan analysis, serve this purpose. The ratings classify news services as “left” (liberal), leaning left, right (conservative), leaning right, and center (neutral).

Regardless of their biases, most news is slanted in some way, just as all outlets use rhetorical devices and editorial choices to influence readers. Focusing on “left” and “right” examples, here are ten ways that news media subtly (and not so subtly) manipulate audiences.

Related: 10 Lies You Believe About Plastic Recycling

10 Analogies That Create a Battle

News sites often use metaphors of war to dramatize politics. For example, a Daily Beast headline about Trump’s legal cases spoke of “fights on multiple fronts.” The metaphor suggests combat, casting the administration as embattled on all sides, rather than simply involved in lawsuits. Readers are primed to imagine a desperate battle rather than routine legal wrangling.

This technique isn’t unique to one side. Right-leaning outlets have described President Biden as “under fire” or “taking hits” on multiple fronts. The metaphor of warfare simplifies complicated policy disputes into a story of winners and losers. Phrases like “war on drugs,” “culture wars,” and “battle for the soul of America” show how entrenched this framing is. Once readers accept the analogy, they may interpret every policy disagreement as a high-stakes fight rather than a debate or negotiation.^[1]

9 Loaded Verbs in Headlines

Action verbs like “slams,” “blasts,” or “savages” are newsroom favorites. Fox News, labeled “right” by AllSides, used the headline “Pete Buttigieg slams Democrats’ ‘Portlandia’ approach to pushing diversity.” The word “slams” portrays Buttigieg as aggressive and reactive. Paired with “pushing” and the comedic “Portlandia” reference, the framing makes the exchange sound harsher and less thoughtful than a neutral verb like “criticizes” would suggest.

This trick shows up everywhere. A left-leaning site might say “Republicans blast Biden plan” or “GOP torches voting rights bill.” In both cases, the verb paints the speaker as delivering a fiery attack, whether or not the actual remarks were measured. Linguists note that readers interpret strong verbs emotionally, so the word “slams” can make an ordinary policy critique feel like an angry outburst. It’s a small choice that changes tone dramatically.^[2]

8 Connotative Modifiers

Modifiers often carry emotional weight. A Mother Jones headline about a local figure read, “Oakland’s Merchant of Bad Vibes.” By labeling him a “merchant of bad vibes,” the headline not only describes but also nudges readers to view him as shady and untrustworthy before they even click. The exact reason for suspicion isn’t stated—it’s the mood-setting language that does the work.

This method is everywhere. Think of adjectives like “disgraced,” “embattled,” or “controversial.” A lawmaker might simply be facing questions but calling them “embattled” suggests they’re already on the ropes. A company facing criticism becomes “controversial,” even if only a small group objects. By slipping in these modifiers, editors shape how audiences perceive the subject before reading a word of the article. Readers often carry that impression long after the details are forgotten.^[3]

7 Article Placement Above the Fold

Newspapers have always known that article placement equals importance. A Columbia Journalism Review analysis of New York Times coverage during the 2016 election found that front-page stories overwhelmingly focused on scandals and poll “horse race” coverage, while only a handful addressed policy. By giving prime space to spectacle over substance, the paper implied these were the issues that mattered most.

In the digital age, “above the fold” has new forms. Stories promoted on a homepage, featured in mobile push alerts, or trending in Google News now serve the same function. Placement algorithms also act as editors, deciding which stories are “front page” for millions of readers at once. A scandal headline pushed out in a news alert will feel more important than a carefully researched policy report buried further down the site.^[4]

6 Biased Photographs

Photos can manipulate just as much as words. The New York Post once ran a lighthearted story featuring Elon Musk’s son caught on camera picking his nose near the Oval Office Resolute Desk. Combined with cheeky captions, the image undercut both Musk and Trump, making them look ridiculous. Readers who only glanced at the photo could come away with the impression that both men were laughable.

History offers even clearer cases. In 1994, Time magazine darkened O.J. Simpson’s mugshot, a decision widely condemned as playing into racist stereotypes. Political candidates are often victims too: John Kerry’s windsurfing photo in 2004 was used to make him seem elitist, while coverage of protests often shows either peaceful marchers or burning cars, depending on the outlet’s desired frame. Cropping, angle, and timing all affect how audiences interpret an image.^[5]

5 One-Sided Reporting

Sometimes outlets cater only to their base. But readers don’t always appreciate it. A 2019 Pew Research poll found that over half of Americans considered “one-sided reporting” a very big problem with news, particularly on social media. While slanted stories may appeal to partisans, they risk alienating others and eroding overall trust in journalism.

The danger is the echo chamber effect. When one-sided coverage dominates, readers hear only what they already believe, reinforcing biases and deepening polarization. Gallup and Pew studies both show that conservatives overwhelmingly distrust mainstream outlets. At the same time, liberals trust a narrower set of news organizations. This divide didn’t happen overnight—it’s fueled by decades of slanted reporting that rewarded loyal readers but left the middle unconvinced.^[6]

4 Exaggeration to Fill Space

Exaggeration is an old newsroom trick. As a young reporter in Virginia City, Mark Twain admitted that when he couldn’t find much to report, he inflated one hay wagon into sixteen for his paper. By multiplying a dull detail into a town-wide event, he created the illusion of news. Readers believed the hype because they trusted the paper to report facts.

That instinct—to stretch a thin story—is still with us. In the late 1800s, “yellow journalism” thrived on exaggerated headlines about crime and scandal. Today’s equivalent is clickbait: “You Won’t Believe What Happened Next” or “This Tiny Mistake Could Cost You Everything.” Often the story is far less dramatic than the headline promises, but the exaggeration drives clicks and shares, just as Twain’s hay wagons sold papers.^[7]

3 Sensational Headlines

A 2022 study observed that some newspapers fill their front pages with the sensational: strange, odd, unusual, amazing. Headlines calculated to shock or amuse are designed to hook readers emotionally. This practice can distract from serious issues, encouraging clicks and sales while reducing space for nuanced reporting.

Tabloids have long thrived on sensationalism. The New York Post famously ran the headline “Headless Body in Topless Bar,” while British red-tops scream with “shock” and “outrage” almost daily. Digital outlets have followed suit, as neuroscience studies show that emotionally charged words increase the likelihood of sharing on social media. When every headline competes for attention, sensationalism often wins out over sober analysis.^[8]

2 Political Endorsements

In the 19th century, many newspapers were openly partisan mouthpieces, publishing endorsements as a way to push readers toward a chosen candidate. William Randolph Hearst’s empire made endorsements a political weapon, and publishers wielded immense power. Even in the mid-20th century, endorsements were taken seriously by voters who trusted newspapers as neutral arbiters.

Today, things have changed. Many papers have abandoned endorsements altogether, citing shrinking influence and fears of alienating subscribers. When The Arizona Republic endorsed Hillary Clinton in 2016—the first Democrat in its 125-year history—angry readers canceled subscriptions. Research suggests endorsements rarely sway votes anymore, but the practice still signals where a paper stands and can spark controversy out of proportion to its actual impact.^[9]

1 Obituaries That Soft-Pedal Scandal

Even obituaries can reveal bias. When O.J. Simpson died in 2024, The New York Times obituary initially framed him as a fallen hero whose life was ruined by murder charges. Readers objected that this phrasing minimized the gravity of the case. The paper later revised the wording to emphasize how the trial reshaped debates on race and justice in America. The quick edits showed that audiences are not always passive consumers—they push back when manipulation goes too far.

Other examples abound. When Margaret Thatcher died in 2013, some outlets praised her as Britain’s greatest peacetime leader, while others highlighted divisive policies and protests. The contrast revealed as much about the outlets as about Thatcher herself. Obituaries, supposedly the final word on a life, are still shaped by editorial choices—and those choices influence how future readers remember the dead.^[10]