User Information Needs vs. User Effects

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 generalize from a few anecdotes to imply a broader trend

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 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 encourage you to share this narrative with others, especially on social media, to make our voices heard

I will knowingly omit, distort, or misrepresent details in my reporting to support a narrative

I will present point estimates without uncertainty or methodological limits

I will present opinion/analysis without clearly labeling it as such

I will report on identifying/graphic details lacking a compelling public-interest rationale

I will report relative changes without base rates or denominators

I will lean on stereotypes or labels that stigmatize groups or communities

I will insist on using words and expressions that are loaded and evocative of a specific narrative.

I will echo narratives that our faction shares on social media to reinforce my sense of belonging and gain your trust.

I will cast opposing arguments as common beliefs, undermining their legitimacy and implying they are unoriginal, uncritical, or even mindless

I will reuse others’ work with minimal changes and inadequate attribution

I will present the events in a way that highlights our faction's successes

I will crop, stage, or composite images/video without disclosure to heighten drama

We are connected and share a common burden and purpose, as we are both part of the same faction

I will clip or splice recordings so that the meaning is altered or reversed

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 use jargon familiar to you, leaving no doubt I’m part of the same faction

This piece is written in a satirical style; its factual claims are intentionally fictitious or exaggerated

I will extend findings beyond their valid scope, sample, or geography

I will dehumanize opponents or groups, or use slurs and demeaning metaphors to strip them of agency or humanity

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 prioritize SEO phrasing that distorts emphasis or adds speculation

I will always represent our political representatives and allies in a positive light, regardless of what they say or do

I will publish lightly edited material from press releases or briefings

I will downplay any comment or situation that casts our political representatives and allies in a negative light

I will use specialized jargon without translation for lay readers

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 present a source’s credentials as if they establish expertise in a different domain central to the claim

I will quote officials and familiar experts while omitting directly affected stakeholders

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

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

I will respect your point of view, reinforcing that it is reasonable and worth consideration, even when most people disagree.

I will mix older facts with new developments without clear dating

I will center elite/metro perspectives and neglect peripheral communities

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

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 follow the prevailing angle other outlets are using instead of reporting afresh

I will delay or downplay corrections and updates

I will use question headlines that insinuate a claim I can’t support (“Did X just…?”)

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 present vague attributions (“sources say”) that convey spin without accountability

I will present unverified rumors or early scanner chatter as likely facts during breaking news

I will selectively choose aspects of the events to make sure the reporting is beneficial to our faction, and therefore yours

I will rely on unnamed sources beyond necessity and without specific justification

I will generalize from unrepresentative or small samples without disclosing limitations

I will use charts or figures that may mislead due to scale or window choices

I will imply causation from correlations or short-term co-movements

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 frame politics as a game of wins/losses and polls over policy substance

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 discard, downplay, or gloss over the viewpoints of our political adversaries, regardless of how sound and reasonable they may be

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 soften critiques or downplay them to maintain access to key sources

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 subtly incorporate my opinions into my reporting through careful word choice and by how I present facts and events

I will rely on a single primary source due to deadline pressure

I will be relentless with our political adversaries

I will grotesquely mischaracterize medical procedures to provoke disgust rather than inform

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

I will publish serious allegations without offering the subject a chance to respond

I will leave no doubt that I am aligned with the political views of our faction

I will project outcomes before sufficient data or verification is available

I will choose visuals that exaggerate the emotional tone of the story

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 downplay economic data and financial events if they are not favorable for our political representatives and our faction.

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