US urges Beijing to end military pressure against Taiwan, ‘engage in meaningful dialogue’. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s views or interpretations more extensively or sympathetically than the other side’s.

The article quotes extensively from US officials and bodies: - “We urge Beijing to exercise restraint, cease its military pressure against Taiwan, and instead engage in meaningful dialogue.” - “These drills are intended to intimidate Taiwan and other democracies in the region and to undermine peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific.” - “The United States stands with Taiwan and fellow democracies and will continue to work with partners to preserve Taiwan’s security and uphold a free, open and stable Indo-Pacific.” By contrast, the PRC side is represented only by a brief factual line: - “Beijing sees Taiwan as part of China to be reunited by force if necessary.” - “The Chinese embassy in Washington did not immediately respond to a request for comment.” There is no detailed explanation of Beijing’s stated rationale for the exercises, its official framing (e.g., as responses to arms sales or as sovereignty assertions), or any quotes from PRC officials or state media. This creates an imbalance in how each side’s motivations and narratives are presented.

3 suggestions

Include official statements or representative quotes from PRC authorities or state media explaining their stated reasons for the exercises and their view of US arms sales to Taiwan.

Add context on how Beijing typically frames such exercises (e.g., as responses to perceived provocations, sovereignty assertions, or deterrence) to parallel the detailed presentation of US motives.

Clarify that the lack of PRC comment is due to non-response at the time of publication and, if possible, note any prior similar statements from Beijing to avoid leaving one side largely voiceless.

Biased language

Use of loaded or value-laden terms that implicitly favor one interpretation or side.

Several phrases adopt or echo one side’s framing without parallel language for the other side: - “intimidating military moves in the area around Taiwan that it said creates needless anxiety and stress.” — While attributed to the US, the narrative framing of the exercise as “intimidating” and causing “needless” anxiety is not balanced with how Beijing characterizes the same actions. - “Beijing’s moves to ‘rehearse’ coercive military scenarios and project force are designed to ‘reshape the regional order through aggression and intimidation’” — This is a strong characterization of intent. It is attributed to the US committee, but the article does not juxtapose it with any alternative interpretation or PRC framing. - “Taipei’s military establishment has long resisted this shift towards a ‘porcupine’ strategy in favour of costly and prestigious tanks, fighter aircraft and other conventional weaponry…” — The words “costly and prestigious” subtly frame conventional systems as vanity or status-driven rather than potentially having legitimate strategic rationale. These word choices, even when partly attributed, cumulatively tilt the tone toward the US/Taiwan security narrative.

3 suggestions

When using charged terms like “intimidating”, “coercive”, “aggression”, and “intimidation”, consistently attribute them explicitly (e.g., “US officials described the exercises as…”), and avoid adopting them in the reporter’s own voice.

Add neutral descriptions of the exercises (e.g., scale, location, types of assets) without evaluative adjectives, letting readers infer severity.

Balance evaluative language about Taiwan’s procurement choices by including the military’s stated reasons for preferring certain systems (e.g., air superiority, deterrence signaling) rather than only describing them as “costly and prestigious.”

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged wording or imagery to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing strictly on neutral description.

Some quoted language is highly emotive and is presented prominently: - “These drills are intended to intimidate Taiwan and other democracies in the region and to undermine peace and stability across the Indo-Pacific.” - “reshape the regional order through aggression and intimidation” While these are quotations, they are strong emotional framings (intimidate, undermine peace, aggression) that may steer readers’ emotional response without equivalent emotional framing from the other side.

3 suggestions

Retain the quotes but clearly frame them as the committee’s or officials’ interpretations, and follow them with factual, non-emotive descriptions of what actually occurred (numbers of ships, aircraft, duration, locations).

Where possible, add any PRC statements that use their own emotive framing (e.g., about sovereignty or foreign interference) to show that both sides use emotionally charged rhetoric, allowing readers to compare.

Consider adding brief analytical context noting that such rhetoric is part of broader political messaging by both sides, which helps readers separate emotional language from verifiable facts.

Cherry-picking data / Selective use of sources

Presenting only certain data points or expert views that support one narrative while omitting relevant counterpoints.

The article cites analysts and a US-Taiwan business council representative in ways that support the US arms package and strategic framing: - “Analysts said Beijing likely calibrated its show of force to express its displeasure without going so far that it would seriously undermine US-China relations…” - “this package fits neatly” with the National Security Strategy and the idea that “Taiwan should do more for its own defence”. There are no analysts quoted who question the arms package, raise concerns about escalation risks, or present a PRC-leaning strategic assessment. Similarly, the data on PLA sorties and ships is detailed, but there is no parallel quantitative context on US military activities in the region (e.g., arms sales scale over time, US exercises) that might help readers compare actions on both sides.

3 suggestions

Include at least one expert or analyst who raises concerns about potential escalation, arms race dynamics, or diplomatic alternatives, to balance the pro-arms-package perspective.

Provide comparative data on US military activities or arms sales in the region over time to contextualize Beijing’s exercises, rather than only detailing PLA numbers.

Explicitly note that the analysts cited represent one set of views and that other experts differ, even if space limits prevent extensive quoting.

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex geopolitical and military issue to a simplified narrative that may omit important nuances.

Examples include: - “Beijing sees Taiwan as part of China to be reunited by force if necessary.” — This is broadly accurate but compresses a complex and evolving policy (peaceful reunification as stated preference, ‘by force if necessary’ as a retained option) into a single line without nuance. - The portrayal of Taiwan’s defence debate: “Taipei’s military establishment has long resisted this shift towards a ‘porcupine’ strategy in favour of costly and prestigious tanks, fighter aircraft and other conventional weaponry…” — This frames the debate largely as prestige vs practicality, omitting other strategic arguments (e.g., air control, alliance signaling, domestic politics, industrial base considerations). These simplifications can lead readers to see one side’s choices as obviously flawed or purely aggressive without understanding the underlying complexity.

3 suggestions

Expand the description of Beijing’s position to note both its stated preference for peaceful unification and its refusal to renounce the use of force, making clear this is a long-standing but contested policy.

Briefly outline the main strategic arguments on both sides of Taiwan’s defence debate (e.g., proponents of conventional systems vs asymmetric ‘porcupine’ advocates) rather than reducing it to prestige vs cost.

Where space is limited, signal complexity with phrases like “among other reasons” or “in a long-running debate over how best to deter an attack,” to avoid implying a single simple motive.

Confirmation bias / Availability cascade (in sourcing)

Relying on sources and narratives that reinforce a prevailing view, making that view appear more universally accepted than it may be.

The article’s sources are predominantly US officials, a US congressional committee, Western analysts, and a US-Taiwan business council representative. Their views align in portraying Beijing’s actions as intimidation and escalation and the US arms package as appropriate and strategically sound. The absence of dissenting expert views or detailed PRC perspectives can create an impression that this framing is the only reasonable one, reinforcing a common Western narrative about the Taiwan Strait.

3 suggestions

Actively seek and include at least one expert or source who offers a different interpretation of Beijing’s motives or questions aspects of US policy, clearly labeled as such.

Note explicitly that interpretations of the exercises and arms sales differ among analysts and governments, and that the article is presenting some, not all, of those views.

Where possible, reference polling, regional expert commentary, or multilateral statements (e.g., from other Indo-Pacific states) to show a broader range of perspectives beyond the US and Taiwan.