Rhetorical Patterns & Detection Cues
A working reference for bias detection in the Modular Journalism pipeline
A working reference for bias detection in the Modular Journalism pipeline
This table defines the rhetorical patterns used in the Modular Journalism pipeline. Each Rhetoric captures a recurring editorial tactic that can reduce user value—by misleading, omitting, or distorting information. Beneath each rhetoric, the Detection Cues specify what agents should watch for:
Each rhetoric is also linked to User Information Needs—questions that help rebuild the missing or distorted elements. These needs act as editorial countermeasures: they guide agents (or editors) in restoring context, provenance, comparisons, or methods.
In the pipeline, Agent 2 uses these cues to annotate paragraphs. Downstream agents then use the needs to reconstruct modular story units that are transparent, verifiable, and useful.
The pattern and cues dataset is a work in progress and will be tested and finetuned during training.
| Rhetoric Patterns | Lexicons | Structures | Guards | Red Cards | Yellow Cards |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Emotional Activation & Agitation |
|
|
| I will report on identifying/graphic details lacking a compelling public-interest rationale I will write headlines that lean stronger than the body conveys I will use question headlines that insinuate a claim I can’t support (“Did X just…?”) I will actively acknowledge your viewpoint to make sure you feel understood and valued and to stir loyalty/fervor I will provide just enough information to provoke a strong reaction when this is convenient for our faction I will choose visuals that exaggerate the emotional tone of the story I will crop, stage, or composite images/video without disclosure to heighten drama | Sensitive details are included—public-interest rationale may need stating The headline leans stronger than the body — tone and claims may need alignment. Question‑style headline hints at a claim — evidence in the body should address or avoid insinuation. Tone appeals to reader affinity — maintaining neutral voice may reduce persuasive framing. Content may emphasize provocation — additional context could reduce heat and increase light. Visuals heighten emotion — more representative imagery may reduce overstatement. Edits may shape perception—disclosure of edits can add clarity |
Verification & Media Forensics |
|
|
| n/a | n/a |
Science/Fact Abuse & Context Stripping |
|
|
| I will present point estimates without uncertainty or methodological limits I will extend findings beyond their valid scope, sample, or geography I will report findings from scientific papers or research as established facts, without providing caveats, or acknowledging the broader context and the peer review-process I will not challenge or fact-check false or exaggerated statements during an interview or while hosting, when it is convenient for my faction I will present unverified rumors or early scanner chatter as likely facts during breaking news I will generalize from unrepresentative or small samples without disclosing limitations I will imply causation from correlations or short-term co-movements I will not contradict false statements, not even when they go against the consensus of experts and scientists, if they support my faction's arguments. I will not weigh or place in context statements contradicting accepted or verified science or facts, nor will I give credit or dignity to minority arguments simply because they support a narrative shared with my faction. I will project outcomes before sufficient data or verification is available I will present opposing claims as equally credible even when the evidence is uneven (false balance) I will emphasize uncertainty or “debate” for well-established points while omitting uncertainty where it truly applies I will grotesquely mischaracterize medical procedures to provoke disgust rather than inform | Point estimates are presented with emphasis — uncertainty or context may be needed. Findings may be extended beyond their valid scope — limits and applicability may need clarifying. Research findings are presented with limited caveats — methodology and uncertainty may need context. Pushback on dubious claims appears limited — additional fact‑checking or context may be helpful. Early information appears tentative — clearly marking unverified details may help. Sampling or interpretation may be limited — methodology and margins of error may need context. Correlations are discussed as causal — mechanisms and controls may need scrutiny. False claims go unchallenged—consider adding fact-checks or expert context Claims contradicting established science receive limited context — evidence and consensus may need clearer framing. Projections are drawn from limited data — confidence intervals and scenarios may help. False‑balance risk — the weight of evidence may be uneven. Uncertainty language appears asymmetric—make uncertainty consistent across claims Descriptions are graphic and pejorative—use neutral, clinical terms and cite sources |
Satire & Humor |
| — |
| This piece is written in a satirical style; its factual claims are intentionally fictitious or exaggerated | Satirical tone signals fictional content—treat other findings accordingly |
Partisan Promotion & Apologetics |
|
|
| I will present the events in a way that highlights our faction's successes In conversations with our political adversaries, I will not ask follow-up questions or reinforce any arguments that have merit, but will instead change the topic to shield allies I will always represent our political representatives and allies in a positive light, regardless of what they say or do I will downplay any comment or situation that casts our political representatives and allies in a negative light I will soften critiques or downplay them to maintain access to key sources I will downplay economic data and financial events if they are not favorable for our political representatives and our faction. I will publish lightly edited material from press releases or briefings I will emphasize economic data and financial events, even if they are out of context, if those events cast our political representatives or allies in a good light | Coverage highlights one side’s wins—consider broader context Topic shifts may avoid substantive points—stay with the question Reporting skews positive for one side—neutral tone could aid credibility Potential negative angles receive less weight—seek balanced portrayal Coverage may be tempered to preserve access — independence and critical distance may need reinforcing. Unfavorable indicators receive limited emphasis — a fuller picture may aid balance. Material resembles a press release — independent reporting or corroboration may be warranted. Economic indicators are emphasized selectively — broader context may be needed. |
Transparency & Provenance |
|
|
| I will present a source’s credentials as if they establish expertise in a different domain central to the claim | Credentials are highlighted; domain relevance may be unclear — clarify expertise relative to the claim. |
Framing, Spin & Loaded Language |
|
|
| I will present opinion/analysis without clearly labeling it as such I will insist on using words and expressions that are loaded and evocative of a specific narrative. I will prioritize SEO phrasing that distorts emphasis or adds speculation I will frame statements or events, giving an interpretation that supports a narrative I will write headlines that lean stronger than the body conveys I will use the passive voice to obscure who did what and prioritize the action itself and the recipient of that action, rather than who performed it I will mix older facts with new developments without clear dating I will center elite/metro perspectives and neglect peripheral communities I will selectively share information, focusing on what I know interests you and what you are comfortable with, omitting instead details that would displease you I will selectively choose aspects of the events to make sure the reporting is beneficial to our faction, and therefore yours I will use charts or figures that may mislead due to scale or window choices I will assume users are familiar with the people I'm discussing and their perspectives, so I'll characterize them in a way that's consistent with established narratives I will subtly incorporate my opinions into my reporting through careful word choice and by how I present facts and events I will frame politics as a game of wins/losses and polls over policy substance I will lean on stereotypes or labels that stigmatize groups or communities I will use specialized jargon without translation for lay readers I will carefully craft my reporting on the events, making sure that what I say aligns with your expectations and is in the interest of our faction I will grotesquely mischaracterize medical procedures to provoke disgust rather than inform | This blends reporting with analysis — clearer labeling or separation may help. The language used is emotionally charged and may suggest a particular narrative frame. SEO phrasing may shape emphasis — clarity and precision may need priority. Events are framed interpretively — alternative readings or evidence may add balance. The headline leans stronger than the body — tone and claims may need alignment. Passive voice obscures agency — clarifying who did what may aid accountability. Older and newer facts appear mixed without clear dating — timestamps may improve clarity. Coverage centers elite perspectives — community or peripheral voices may add context. Details align with audience preferences — missing countervailing context may exist. Event selection favors one side—note rationale or add counter-examples Chart choices (scale/window) may mislead — alternative views or annotations may clarify. Characterization leans on familiar frames—describe specific actions instead Reporter voice or opinion appears in news copy — separating analysis from news may clarify. Focus leans toward campaign ‘horse‑race’ — policy substance and impacts may need emphasis. Group labels risk stereotyping—specifics may avoid overgeneralization. Specialized jargon is used — plain‑language translation may aid general readers. Language may be tailored to one audience—signal scope or include diverse perspectives Descriptions are graphic and pejorative—use neutral, clinical terms and cite sources |
Shared Identity Context | — | — |
| n/a | n/a |
Source Opacity & Unverifiability |
|
|
| I will talk to you, giving the impression that I am in the know, a fly on the wall in the rooms that matter, but I will not reveal who my sources are and will not apologize for not revealing them. Nothing of what I say can be held accountable. I will present vague attributions (“sources say”) that convey spin without accountability I will rely on unnamed sources beyond necessity and without specific justification I will rely on a single primary source due to deadline pressure | This relies on unnamed sources and may give the impression of insider access without attribution. Attribution is vague (“sources say”) — more specificity or corroboration may be needed. Relies on unnamed sources — justification and corroboration may be needed. Single‑source reporting — corroboration or additional sources may strengthen reliability. |
Selective Evidence & Context Control |
|
|
| I will generalize from a few anecdotes to imply a broader trend I will compare non-equivalent groups or periods as if they were the same I will seek selective evidence and emphasize information that confirms the initial angle I will report relative changes without base rates or denominators I will quote officials and familiar experts while omitting directly affected stakeholders I will mix older facts with new developments without clear dating I will center elite/metro perspectives and neglect peripheral communities I will selectively share information, focusing on what I know interests you and what you are comfortable with, omitting instead details that would displease you I will selectively choose aspects of the events to make sure the reporting is beneficial to our faction, and therefore yours I will use charts or figures that may mislead due to scale or window choices I will emphasize economic data and financial events, even if they are out of context, if those events cast our political representatives or allies in a good light | This appears to generalize from limited examples — more data might offer better context. Comparisons may involve non‑equivalent groups — adjustments or like‑for‑like context may be needed. This highlights particular evidence — other relevant perspectives may be underrepresented. Changes are described without base rates — denominators or absolute numbers may be needed. Sources skew toward officials/experts — directly affected stakeholders may be underrepresented. Older and newer facts appear mixed without clear dating — timestamps may improve clarity. Coverage centers elite perspectives — community or peripheral voices may add context. Details align with audience preferences — missing countervailing context may exist. Event selection favors one side—note rationale or add counter-examples Chart choices (scale/window) may mislead — alternative views or annotations may clarify. Economic indicators are emphasized selectively — broader context may be needed. |
Opponent Suppression & Delegitimization |
|
|
| I will cast opposing arguments as common beliefs, undermining their legitimacy and implying they are unoriginal, uncritical, or even mindless In conversations with our political adversaries, I will not ask follow-up questions or reinforce any arguments that have merit, but will instead change the topic to shield allies In conversations with our political adversaries, I will challenge their debunked and damaging narratives by asking questions that force them to address topics that disadvantage them and keep the public's attention on those issues In conversations with our political adversaries, I will often interrupt or appear to lose focus or get bored when listening to their viewpoints, even when a strong, clearly stated, and reasonable argument is made In conversations with our political adversaries, I will feign indifference or confusion when listening to their viewpoints, regardless of how clearly stated or reasonable they may be, reinforcing the impression that their arguments were neither clearly stated nor reasonable I will discard, downplay, or gloss over the viewpoints of our political adversaries, regardless of how sound and reasonable they may be I will be relentless with our political adversaries I will publish serious allegations without offering the subject a chance to respond I will lean on stereotypes or labels that stigmatize groups or communities I will dehumanize opponents or groups, or use slurs and demeaning metaphors to strip them of agency or humanity | Opposing views are characterized broadly — specific evidence and sources may add balance. Topic shifts may avoid substantive points—stay with the question Question framing may re-center a debunked narrative—reframing may help Handling of opponents may feel dismissive—full airing of views can help readers judge Tone management could reduce perceived partisanship Potential negative angles receive less weight—seek balanced portrayal Tone toward opponents is harsh—moderate language may improve balance Offering a chance to respond may improve fairness Group labels risk stereotyping—specifics may avoid overgeneralization. Language dehumanizes a person or group—quote precisely and avoid slurs; focus on actions |
Opinion / Column Context | — | — |
| n/a | n/a |
Social Amplification & Message Discipline |
|
|
| I will encourage you to share this narrative with others, especially on social media, to make our voices heard I will make sure to keep you on message when you discuss this narrative on social media, highlighting the key talking points and suppressing any dissenting views or alternative perspectives I will echo narratives that our faction shares on social media to reinforce my sense of belonging and gain your trust. I will leave no doubt that I am aligned with the political views of our faction I will publish lightly edited material from press releases or briefings I will follow the prevailing angle other outlets are using instead of reporting afresh | Calls to share appear tied to a narrative—consider neutral framing Messaging guidance appears coordinated—disclose sponsorship/affiliation if relevant This echoes prevailing narratives — independent verification or sourcing may be helpful. Voice signals alignment—neutral phrasing may aid balance Material resembles a press release — independent reporting or corroboration may be warranted. Angle follows other outlets — original reporting or novel data may add value. |
Stereotyping & Vilification |
|
|
| I will lean on stereotypes or labels that stigmatize groups or communities I will dehumanize opponents or groups, or use slurs and demeaning metaphors to strip them of agency or humanity | Group labels risk stereotyping—specifics may avoid overgeneralization. Language dehumanizes a person or group—quote precisely and avoid slurs; focus on actions |
Deception & Distortion |
|
|
| I will knowingly omit, distort, or misrepresent details in my reporting to support a narrative I will reuse others’ work with minimal changes and inadequate attribution I will clip or splice recordings so that the meaning is altered or reversed I will delay or downplay corrections and updates I will omit my or my outlet’s financial/personal ties relevant to the story I will silently revise or remove articles instead of issuing transparent corrections I will crop, stage, or composite images/video without disclosure to heighten drama | Narrative may drive emphasis—verify completeness of key details Wording resembles source material—clearer attribution may be needed Edits may shape perception—disclosure of edits can add clarity Corrections or updates may be understated — clearer disclosure could aid transparency. Disclosure may improve fairness and user trust Edits or corrections may be quiet — visible change notes could improve transparency. Edits may shape perception—disclosure of edits can add clarity |
In-group Alignment & Identity Signaling |
|
|
| I acknowledge that our community is divided into opposing factions. I know which faction you belong to and want to make it clear that I am on the same side I will echo narratives that our faction shares on social media to reinforce my sense of belonging and gain your trust. We are connected and share a common burden and purpose, as we are both part of the same faction I will use jargon familiar to you, leaving no doubt I’m part of the same faction I will respect your point of view, reinforcing that it is reasonable and worth consideration, even when most people disagree. I will actively acknowledge your viewpoint to make sure you feel understood and valued and to stir loyalty/fervor I will leave no doubt that I am aligned with the political views of our faction I will assume users are familiar with the people I'm discussing and their perspectives, so I'll characterize them in a way that's consistent with established narratives I will use specialized jargon without translation for lay readers I will carefully craft my reporting on the events, making sure that what I say aligns with your expectations and is in the interest of our faction | Language aligns with a side—neutral distance could help This echoes prevailing narratives — independent verification or sourcing may be helpful. Voice appeals to shared identity — may blur distance between reporter and audience. Language assumes in‑group familiarity — plain explanations may aid broader readers. Writing affirms the reader’s viewpoint — neutral tone or counterpoints may offer balance. Tone appeals to reader affinity — maintaining neutral voice may reduce persuasive framing. Voice signals alignment—neutral phrasing may aid balance Characterization leans on familiar frames—describe specific actions instead Specialized jargon is used — plain‑language translation may aid general readers. Language may be tailored to one audience—signal scope or include diverse perspectives |