Why Dolphins owner Stephen Ross reportedly fired Mike McDaniel, could pass on John Harbaugh . 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Clickbait / Misleading headline

Using a headline that overstates certainty or drama compared to what the article actually supports.

ARTICLE TITLE: "Why Dolphins owner Stephen Ross reportedly fired Mike McDaniel, could pass on John Harbaugh" The body of the article only suggests that Louis-Jacques "seems to think" Ross and Harbaugh could decide he is not the right fit and that the Dolphins are "likely headed toward another rebuild" where an upstart coach "makes sense." It does not provide concrete reporting that Ross will or is likely to pass on Harbaugh, only that this is a plausible scenario. The title frames it as a more definite, report-based possibility than the text actually substantiates.

3 suggestions

Change the title to something more conditional and clearly speculative, for example: "Why Dolphins owner Stephen Ross fired Mike McDaniel, and how that could affect John Harbaugh’s chances".

Alternatively: "Why Stephen Ross moved on from Mike McDaniel, and why some think John Harbaugh may not be the right fit".

Explicitly signal in the title that the Harbaugh angle is analysis, not a firm report, e.g., "…and why John Harbaugh might not be the next Dolphins coach" instead of "could pass on John Harbaugh" which implies a more concrete decision.

Speculation / Unsubstantiated implication

Presenting speculative scenarios or possibilities in a way that nudges readers toward assuming they are more grounded than the evidence supports.

1) "Interestingly, Louis-Jacques seems to think Ross and Harbaugh could come to an understanding that the one-time Super Bowl champion head coach isn't the right fit for what the Dolphins need right now." This is framed as what the reporter "seems to think" rather than a clearly labeled opinion or a direct quote. It is speculative about Ross and Harbaugh’s future decision-making without concrete sourcing beyond inference. 2) "Then again, perhaps Ross made a move at head coach knowing he already had a handshake agreement worked out with Harbaugh." This is pure speculation, introduced with "perhaps" and no sourcing. It suggests a secret handshake agreement with Harbaugh without any evidence or attribution, which can mislead readers into giving undue weight to a hypothetical scenario.

3 suggestions

Clearly label speculative parts as opinion or hypothesis, e.g., "One possible scenario is that Ross and Harbaugh could decide he isn’t the right fit…" rather than "Louis-Jacques seems to think…" which blurs reporting and interpretation.

For the handshake agreement line, either remove it or explicitly frame it as unsupported speculation: "There is no public indication of this, but some might wonder whether Ross made a move…" and clarify that there is no reporting to back it up.

Add explicit sourcing or state the lack of it: "There have been no reports of any agreement between Ross and Harbaugh; the idea of a handshake deal is purely hypothetical."

Appeal to emotion (mild) / Narrative framing

Using narrative or emotionally suggestive framing that nudges readers toward a value judgment, even if the facts themselves are accurate.

"This isn't a situation where he necessarily lost the locker room, but this was his fourth season with a hand-picked roster; at this level, results have to matter." The phrase "results have to matter" is a normative, value-laden conclusion that frames the firing as justified, beyond simply reporting that Ross believed change was needed. It subtly encourages readers to accept the firing as the logical or correct outcome rather than presenting it as one interpretation.

3 suggestions

Rephrase to separate fact from evaluation, e.g.: "This isn't a situation where he necessarily lost the locker room. However, in his fourth season with a largely hand-picked roster, the team finished 7–10."

Attribute the evaluative judgment explicitly: "Team decision-makers emphasized that, in their view, results had to matter at this stage."

Avoid general normative statements and stick to verifiable facts and clearly attributed opinions.

Oversimplification / Narrative fallacy (mild)

Imposing a simple cause-and-effect narrative on a complex situation, potentially downplaying other factors.

The article implicitly links McDaniel’s firing primarily to the late-season performance and lack of playoff wins: "Such votes of confidence proved to matter little after Miami closed this season with three losses in four games." and "at this level, results have to matter." While this may be partly true, it simplifies the decision to a single narrative (results and late-season slump) without exploring other possible factors (injuries, front office changes, cap situation, internal disagreements, etc.), which can give readers an incomplete picture.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge complexity: "While the late-season slump and lack of playoff wins were significant factors, other elements such as roster construction, injuries, and organizational direction may also have played a role."

Include any known additional context or explicitly state the limits of available information: "Publicly, Ross cited the need for 'comprehensive change,' but he did not detail all the factors behind the decision."

Avoid phrasing that implies a single decisive cause unless it is clearly supported by direct quotes or detailed sourcing.