Living plants and animals emit a faint glow that fades after death. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism

Using language or framing that makes the content seem more dramatic or extraordinary than the underlying facts warrant.

1) Title: "Living plants and animals emit a faint glow that fades after death" – while factually accurate, it is framed in a way that can evoke mystery or spiritual overtones, especially without immediately clarifying that this is a well‑known biochemical phenomenon. 2) Lead sentence: "Living organisms quietly emit light. This glow is real, measurable, and tied to life itself." The phrase "tied to life itself" is somewhat dramatic and could be read as hinting at something deeper than biochemistry, even though the article later clarifies the physical basis.

3 suggestions

Revise the title to make the scientific context explicit, e.g., "Living plants and animals emit ultraweak biochemical light that fades after death".

Adjust the lead to reduce dramatic phrasing, e.g., "Living organisms emit extremely faint light due to normal biochemical reactions. Researchers have shown that this ultraweak light decreases sharply after death."

Add an early clarifying clause in the first paragraph, e.g., "This glow is real, measurable, and arises from ordinary biochemical reactions associated with metabolism."

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally evocative associations or wording to engage readers in ways that may distract from the factual content.

The article briefly leans on the cultural and mystical association of "auras": "I suppose it has a little to do with people being reminded of auras," Simon says. This can evoke spiritual or mystical feelings in readers, even though the article later emphasizes the biochemical nature of the phenomenon.

3 suggestions

Immediately follow the aura reference with a clarifying sentence from the journalist, e.g., "However, the phenomenon described here is fully explained by known biochemical processes, not by spiritual or paranormal concepts."

Rephrase the quote introduction to reduce emotional association, e.g., "Simon notes that the idea may remind some people of so‑called 'auras,' but stresses that the effect is entirely physical."

Add a short explanatory box or sentence distinguishing cultural notions of auras from scientifically measured ultraweak photon emission.

Clickbait / Promotional framing

Using framing or add‑ons primarily to drive engagement or subscriptions rather than to inform, sometimes leveraging the emotional tone of the piece.

Closing line: "Like these kind of feel good stories? Get The Brighter Side of News' newsletter." This shifts from neutral reporting to promotional content and frames the article as a "feel good" story, which can subtly reframe the scientific content as uplifting entertainment rather than information.

3 suggestions

Separate the promotional line clearly from the article body (e.g., as a visually distinct footer) and label it as a subscription prompt, not part of the editorial content.

Use neutral wording, e.g., "For more science and technology coverage, subscribe to The Brighter Side of News' newsletter."

Ensure that any promotional call‑to‑action does not characterize the scientific content in emotional terms (e.g., avoid "feel good stories" and instead use "science features" or "research news").

Appeal to authority (mild, non‑misleading)

Relying on the status of experts or institutions to support claims. Here it is mostly appropriate but still worth noting.

The article repeatedly references named physicists and institutions: "The research was led by physicists Dr. Daniel Oblak and Dr. Christoph Simon from the University of Calgary’s Department of Physics and Astronomy" and "Research findings are available online in the Journal of Physical Chemistry." These are appropriate citations, but the article does not discuss any limitations or alternative interpretations, which can subtly encourage readers to accept the findings uncritically because of the prestigious sources.

3 suggestions

Add a brief limitations section, e.g., "The study was conducted on specific plant species and hairless mice under controlled laboratory conditions, so further research is needed to determine how broadly these findings apply."

Include a short note on open questions, e.g., "Researchers do not yet know how reliably UPE can distinguish between different types of stress or disease in clinical settings."

Clarify that peer review and reputable institutions increase reliability but do not make findings infallible, e.g., "While publication in a peer‑reviewed journal adds credibility, additional studies will be needed to confirm and extend these results."

Oversimplification / Narrative fallacy (mild)

Presenting complex phenomena as having a single, simple explanation or fitting them into a neat story, potentially glossing over nuance.

Statements such as "The simplest explanation was the loss of active metabolism. Once biochemical reactions stop, the glow fades." and "The findings suggest that UPE reflects core biological activity. Living systems glow more than dead ones." present a clean, linear story. While likely accurate in broad strokes, they do not mention possible confounding factors, measurement limits, or the complexity of different metabolic pathways.

3 suggestions

Qualify the explanation, e.g., "The simplest and most likely explanation is the loss of active metabolism, although other post‑mortem chemical changes may also contribute."

Add nuance to the summary, e.g., "The findings suggest that UPE is closely linked to biological activity: in these experiments, living systems glowed more than dead ones under the same conditions."

Briefly mention that more work is needed to fully map all contributors to UPE, e.g., "Researchers are still investigating which specific biochemical pathways contribute most to UPE in different tissues."