WHO chief says reasons United States gave for withdrawing ‘untrue’. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective in detail while giving little or no space to the opposing side’s arguments or context.

The article quotes and paraphrases the WHO Director-General’s position and the WHO statement at length, including praise of U.S. contributions and the claim that U.S. reasons are ‘untrue’, but does not describe what those U.S. reasons were or provide any U.S. response. Examples: - "The World Health Organization (WHO) Chief said that the reasons given by the United States for its decision to withdraw from the WHO are ‘untrue’." - "He warned that the move will make the United States and the world less safe." - "The statement highlighted America’s contributions to many of the WHO’s greatest achievements..." By contrast, the U.S. side is only mentioned procedurally: "Earlier, US President Donald Trump had signed an executive order to withdraw the country from the WHO." No explanation of the U.S. rationale or supporting arguments is provided.

3 suggestions

Add a concise summary of the reasons the U.S. administration gave for withdrawing from WHO, using neutral language (e.g., concerns about WHO’s handling of COVID-19, alleged bias, funding issues), and attribute them clearly to U.S. officials.

Include any available U.S. government statements or quotes responding to WHO’s characterization that the reasons are ‘untrue’, or note explicitly if no response was available at the time of publication.

Clarify that the article is primarily reporting WHO’s reaction, if that is the intent, for example: "In its response, WHO said..." and explicitly note that the U.S. perspective is summarized only briefly.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that are necessary for readers to fully understand the issue or evaluate competing claims.

The article reports that WHO’s chief called the U.S. reasons ‘untrue’ but never states what those reasons were. This prevents readers from assessing whether the characterization is fair. Example: - "The World Health Organization (WHO) Chief said that the reasons given by the United States for its decision to withdraw from the WHO are ‘untrue’." Without specifying the U.S. reasons (e.g., criticisms of WHO’s pandemic response, alleged deference to certain member states), the reader cannot independently evaluate the dispute.

3 suggestions

Briefly list the main reasons cited by the U.S. administration for withdrawal, with clear attribution (e.g., "The U.S. administration has accused WHO of X, Y, and Z").

If space is limited, at least reference the nature of the U.S. complaints in general terms (e.g., "citing concerns over WHO’s handling of the COVID-19 pandemic and alleged bias").

Note any relevant timeline or investigations (if applicable) that bear on whether those reasons have been substantiated or contested by other experts or bodies.

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged statements to influence readers’ feelings rather than focusing solely on verifiable facts and balanced analysis.

The statement that the move will make the United States and the world "less safe" is a strong, fear-evoking claim. While it is attributed to the WHO Director-General, the article does not provide supporting evidence or counterviews. Example: - "He warned that the move will make the United States and the world less safe."

3 suggestions

Provide brief supporting context or data for the safety claim, such as how WHO coordination or funding affects disease surveillance and response, and attribute any assessments to specific experts or reports.

Clarify that this is an opinion or prediction by WHO’s chief, not an established fact, for example: "He warned that, in his view, the move could make..."

Include, if available, any differing assessments from independent public health experts or U.S. officials about the impact on safety, to balance the emotional weight of the warning.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain interpretations or evaluations over others, influencing how readers perceive the issue.

The article’s selection of details frames the U.S. withdrawal primarily as a loss to global health and a move that undermines safety, without framing or explaining the U.S. rationale. It highlights U.S. contributions and WHO’s achievements, which implicitly positions the withdrawal as irrational or harmful, while not exploring any potential criticisms of WHO. Examples: - Emphasis on "America’s contributions to many of the WHO’s greatest achievements, including the eradication of smallpox and progress against other public health threats..." - The juxtaposition of this praise with the withdrawal decision, without any explanation of U.S. concerns.

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge that the article is reporting WHO’s perspective and that the U.S. administration has presented a different framing of the decision.

Add neutral context about the broader debate over WHO’s performance and governance, including both criticisms and defenses from multiple independent sources.

Rephrase or balance the framing by including not only WHO’s list of achievements but also any widely reported challenges or controversies, so readers see a fuller picture.