Opposition criticizes government proposal on independent authority appointments. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of loaded or evaluative terms that carry judgment rather than neutral description.

1) "SYRIZA launched a sharp attack on Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, accusing him of ‘undermining the rule of law’ in the country." 2) "He and his government are responsible for multiple attacks, insults, and the downgrading of the independent authorities. He should not now seek excuses to construct an institutional façade," SYRIZA said in a statement. These phrases are partisan and strongly evaluative. While they are correctly attributed to SYRIZA, the article does not provide any balancing context or factual basis for such strong claims, which can leave the reader with a one-sided negative impression of the government.

3 suggestions

Clarify that these are partisan characterizations and not established facts, e.g.: "SYRIZA, in a strongly worded statement, accused him of ‘undermining the rule of law’ in the country, without providing specific new evidence in this statement."

Add neutral context or counter-positions, e.g.: "The government has previously rejected such accusations, arguing that its actions comply with constitutional requirements."

Reduce evaluative verbs in narration, e.g. change "launched a sharp attack" to "criticized" or "strongly criticized" to keep tone more neutral: "SYRIZA strongly criticized Prime Minister Kyriakos Mitsotakis, accusing him of…"

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged wording to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing on verifiable facts.

"He and his government are responsible for multiple attacks, insults, and the downgrading of the independent authorities. He should not now seek excuses to construct an institutional façade," SYRIZA said in a statement. The language "multiple attacks, insults, downgrading" and "institutional façade" is designed to provoke concern and indignation. The article relays this emotional framing without indicating whether any concrete examples or evidence were cited in the statement.

3 suggestions

Add factual grounding or examples if available, e.g.: "SYRIZA cited [specific cases] as examples of what it called ‘attacks’ and ‘downgrading’ of the independent authorities."

Clarify the rhetorical nature of the statement, e.g.: "In a highly critical statement, SYRIZA claimed that…" to signal to readers that this is political rhetoric.

Include a brief note that the article does not independently verify these characterizations, e.g.: "The article could not independently verify SYRIZA’s characterization of these actions as ‘attacks’ or ‘downgrading’."

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual facts that would help readers fully understand the issue.

The article reports that Kaklamanis proposed changing the appointment procedure so that, after two failed attempts to reach 180 MPs, a simple majority of 151 MPs would suffice. However, it does not: - Explain what the current full procedure is (e.g., how many rounds, what happens if consensus is not reached now). - Provide the government’s or Kaklamanis’s detailed justification for the proposal beyond the bare procedural suggestion. - Indicate whether similar mechanisms exist in other countries or in previous Greek practice. This omission makes it harder for readers to assess whether the proposal is a radical change, a common practice, or a technical adjustment.

3 suggestions

Add a brief explanation of the current constitutional framework, e.g.: "Under the current system, appointments require a majority of 4/5 (180 MPs) in the Conference of Presidents, and if this is not achieved, [describe what currently happens]."

Include Kaklamanis’s or the government’s stated rationale, if available, e.g.: "Kaklamanis argued that the change would prevent prolonged deadlock in appointments."

Provide minimal comparative or historical context, e.g.: "Similar fallback mechanisms to a simple majority exist in [examples], while critics argue this weakens cross-party consensus."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one or more sides’ criticisms or claims without equivalent space or detail for the other side’s reasoning or response.

The article gives detailed and strongly worded opposition reactions (especially from SYRIZA) but offers only a brief description of Kaklamanis’s proposal and no direct quote or elaboration of his reasoning or the government’s defense of the idea. Example imbalance: - Opposition: "would not allow ‘the degradation of procedures and institutional functions’"; "undermining the rule of law"; "multiple attacks, insults, and the downgrading of the independent authorities". - Government/Parliament Speaker: Only the procedural suggestion is summarized; no direct quote explaining why he believes the change is needed or how it would function in practice.

3 suggestions

Include a direct quote from Kaklamanis explaining his rationale, if available, e.g.: "Kaklamanis said the change is necessary to avoid institutional paralysis when consensus cannot be reached."

Add any official government response to the opposition’s accusations, or note explicitly if none was provided by publication time.

Balance the length and intensity of quoted language by either shortening highly rhetorical opposition quotes or adding similarly detailed, factual explanations from the government side.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims without evidence or indication of whether they have been verified.

The article relays several strong claims from opposition parties without indicating whether they are supported by specific evidence: - PASOK: "it would not allow ‘the degradation of procedures and institutional functions.’" (implies that the proposal degrades institutions, but no explanation is given.) - SYRIZA: "He and his government are responsible for multiple attacks, insults, and the downgrading of the independent authorities." (no concrete examples or references are provided in the article.)

3 suggestions

Add clarifying language that these are allegations, e.g.: "PASOK argued that the proposal would degrade procedures and institutional functions, though it did not detail specific mechanisms in this statement."

If available, summarize any concrete examples cited by the parties, e.g.: "SYRIZA referred to [specific case] as evidence of what it called ‘downgrading’ of the authorities."

Note the lack of verification, e.g.: "These claims were not independently verified by the publication at the time of writing."

Oversimplification

Reducing a complex institutional or constitutional issue to a very brief description that may omit important nuances.

The article states: "Greece has several independent authorities overseeing key areas of public administration. Their institutional independence is intended to make them less prone to direct political influence." This is accurate but very high-level. Combined with the minimal explanation of the appointment mechanism, readers may not fully grasp how the proposed change could affect independence, checks and balances, or political influence.

3 suggestions

Add one or two sentences explaining why a supermajority is currently required (e.g., to ensure cross-party consensus and protect independence).

Briefly outline how a shift to a simple majority might change the balance of power, without taking a side, e.g.: "Critics argue that allowing a simple majority could enable the ruling party to appoint leadership without opposition agreement, while supporters say it prevents deadlock."

Clarify that the impact is debated, not settled, to avoid implying a simple, one-directional effect.