A-List Glam, Airline Food? Critics’ Choice Awards Under Fire After ‘Embarrassing’ Dinner Goes Viral. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism

Using exaggerated or dramatic language to provoke strong reactions or make the story seem more extreme than the facts alone justify.

Phrases such as "are being roasted online," "viral outrage," and "Hollywood’s glitziest tables" heighten drama without providing proportional factual support (e.g., how many posts, what platforms, how widespread the reaction really was). The title also frames the situation as the awards being "under fire" over "airline food," which dramatizes what may be a minor social media trend.

3 suggestions

Replace "are being roasted online" with a more neutral description such as "have drawn criticism online" and specify the scale of the reaction if known.

Change "viral outrage" to a quantified or qualified phrase like "a number of social media users expressed dissatisfaction" and, if possible, include approximate metrics or examples.

Tone down "Hollywood’s glitziest tables" to a factual description such as "the awards ceremony tables" unless the phrase is directly quoted from a source.

Clickbait / Misleading headlines

Using a headline that overstates or distorts the content to attract clicks, often implying more controversy or substance than is actually presented.

Headline: "A-List Glam, Airline Food? Critics’ Choice Awards Under Fire After ‘Embarrassing’ Dinner Goes Viral". The headline suggests a major scandal ("under fire") and strongly associates the food with "airline food" as if that were an established fact, but the body only briefly mentions "jokes about airline meals" and does not substantiate the scale or seriousness of the backlash.

3 suggestions

Revise the headline to something more proportionate, such as: "Critics’ Choice Awards Dinner Draws Mixed Reactions Online After Photo Circulates."

Clarify that "airline food" is a comparison made by some commenters, e.g., "Some Compare Critics’ Choice Awards Dinner to Airline Food After Photo Circulates."

Avoid the phrase "under fire" unless there is evidence of significant, sustained criticism beyond a few social media posts, and reference that evidence in the article.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally loaded words or framing to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing on neutral, verifiable information.

The article leans on emotionally charged terms like "embarrassing," "rabbit food," and "roasted online" without balancing them with neutral descriptions of the meal or any response from organizers. It also uses "A-list Glam, Airline Food?" to create a sense of indignation or ridicule.

3 suggestions

Attribute emotional language clearly as quotes from specific individuals (e.g., "One social media user called it 'embarrassing'"), and balance with neutral description of what was actually served.

Add factual details about the menu (portion size, courses, whether this was a starter or full meal) so readers can form their own judgment.

Include any available response or explanation from event organizers or caterers to reduce one-sided emotional framing.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims as fact without providing evidence, data, or specific sourcing.

Statements like "The Critics’ Choice Awards are being roasted online" and "sparked viral outrage" are made without any examples, numbers, or references to specific platforms or posts. "Even winners hinted at the food situation on stage" is also vague and unsourced.

3 suggestions

Specify where the criticism appeared (e.g., "On X and Instagram, several users shared photos and comments criticizing the meal") and include at least one or two representative quotes with attribution.

Clarify what "viral" means in this context (e.g., number of likes, shares, or views) or avoid the term if such data is not available.

Provide concrete examples or direct quotes from winners who "hinted at the food situation" and name them, or remove the claim if it cannot be substantiated.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important context or facts that are necessary for readers to fully understand and fairly evaluate the situation.

The article does not describe the full menu, whether the pictured plate was a starter, a specific dietary option, or a single course. It also omits any comment from the Critics’ Choice Awards organizers, caterers, or attendees who were satisfied with the food. This makes the situation appear more one-sided and potentially worse than it may have been.

3 suggestions

Include a description of the full meal (e.g., courses, portion sizes, whether there were alternative options) if available.

Seek and present a response from event organizers or the catering company explaining the menu choices or clarifying what the viral photo shows.

Note whether the online criticism represents a small subset of attendees or a broader consensus, and mention if some guests expressed positive or neutral views.

Biased language

Using wording that implicitly takes a side or frames one perspective more favorably without explicit attribution.

Phrases like "the internet had a field day" and "A-List Glam, Airline Food?" implicitly endorse the mocking tone of critics. The article does not signal that this is one perspective among others; instead, it presents the criticism as the default framing.

3 suggestions

Rephrase to neutral language such as "The photo prompted a range of reactions online" instead of "the internet had a field day."

Clearly attribute evaluative phrases to sources (e.g., "Some users joked that it looked like 'airline food'") rather than using them as the article’s own voice.

Add balancing language indicating that not all reactions were negative, if that is accurate, or explicitly state that the article is only reporting on a subset of reactions.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Presenting mainly one side of a story while ignoring or minimizing other relevant perspectives.

The piece focuses exclusively on negative online reactions and hints from winners, without any attempt to include the event organizers’ perspective, caterers’ explanation, or any positive/neutral attendee feedback. This creates an impression that the negative view is universal.

3 suggestions

Include a comment or statement from the Critics’ Choice Awards organizers or the catering company about the menu and the viral photo.

If available, quote at least one attendee who did not share the negative view, or explicitly state that organizers did not respond to a request for comment.

Clarify that the article is summarizing a subset of reactions (e.g., "Some viewers and attendees criticized...") rather than implying unanimous condemnation.