Federal Reserve to Drop Some Prior Demands on Banks to Fix Flaws. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Anonymous sources

Use of unnamed sources whose identities and potential interests are not disclosed, which can limit readers’ ability to assess credibility and possible bias.

Multiple references rely on unnamed individuals: 1) “...according to people familiar with the matter.” 2) “...said the people, who asked for anonymity because the change hasn't been publicly announced.” 3) “...the people said.” 4) “The effort to scale back unresolved warnings would occur in stages through examiner reviews, the people said.” 5) “Consumer deficiencies or material risks are not included in the review, said the people.” These attributions are standard in financial reporting but still reduce transparency about the sources’ positions and incentives.

3 suggestions

Provide more detail about the anonymous sources’ roles and potential interests, while preserving anonymity, e.g., “according to three senior supervision officials at regional Federal Reserve banks, who requested anonymity because the change hasn't been publicly announced.”

Indicate the number and diversity of anonymous sources, e.g., “according to five people familiar with the matter, including current and former Fed supervision staff and executives at large banks.”

Clarify whether the information from anonymous sources is corroborated by documents or multiple independent sources, e.g., “confirmed by a Fed staff memo reviewed by Bloomberg and by three people familiar with the matter.”

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context that would help readers fully evaluate the implications of the policy change.

The article notes that regulators are raising the threshold for ‘matters requiring attention’ and ‘matters requiring immediate attention’ and that some Fed governors, including Michael Barr, have warned that relaxing supervision could undermine oversight. However, it does not provide concrete examples or data illustrating: 1) Specific past cases where such warnings prevented significant losses or failures. 2) Quantitative information on how many warnings are currently outstanding or how many might be removed. 3) Details of Michael Barr’s or other critics’ arguments (e.g., what types of risks they fear will be missed, or references to past crises). This makes it harder for readers to assess the magnitude and potential consequences of the change.

3 suggestions

Add quantitative context, such as approximate numbers or ranges: “As of [recent date], large banks had roughly X ‘matters requiring attention’ and Y ‘matters requiring immediate attention’ outstanding, according to regulatory filings or people familiar with the matter.”

Include concrete examples of how such warnings have functioned in the past: “For example, in [year], a ‘matter requiring immediate attention’ at [bank] led to changes in [area], which regulators later said reduced losses during [event].”

Expand on critics’ concerns with specific arguments or references: “Michael Barr and other governors have argued in speeches and policy papers that narrowing the focus of supervision could allow weaknesses in risk management and compliance to build up, citing the role of such weaknesses in the 2008 financial crisis and in more recent bank failures.”

Selective use of sources

Relying on a limited set of perspectives, which can subtly shape the narrative even if the tone remains neutral.

The article quotes or paraphrases: 1) Bankers’ complaints: “bankers contend [rules] have become too complex… The bankers say the burden has added costs and discouraged lending without necessarily making the system safer.” 2) The Fed’s internal rationale via a memo: focusing on “material financial risks” and “plain language and sufficient specificity.” 3) A brief mention of critics: “Some Fed governors, including Michael Barr, have warned that relaxing supervision could undermine oversight of Wall Street lending giants.” However, it does not include direct quotes or detailed arguments from those critical governors, independent economists, consumer advocates, or systemic-risk experts. The bankers’ perspective is summarized more concretely (costs, lending, complexity), while the opposing view is compressed into a single sentence.

3 suggestions

Include at least one direct quote from Michael Barr or another critic explaining their concerns in more detail, e.g., from a speech, testimony, or interview.

Add perspectives from independent experts or consumer advocates on how narrowing supervisory focus might affect financial stability and consumer protection.

Balance the bankers’ claims about costs and lending with data or expert commentary that either supports or challenges those claims, making clear whether they are contested.

Appeal to authority (mild, contextual)

Relying on the status of authoritative figures or institutions to lend weight to a position, without fully presenting the underlying evidence.

The article notes: “Some Fed governors, including Michael Barr, have warned that relaxing supervision could undermine oversight of Wall Street lending giants.” This invokes the authority of Fed governors to signal that the policy change may be risky, but does not provide the substance of their reasoning or evidence. While this is not a strong or manipulative appeal to authority, it does lean on the stature of the officials rather than their arguments.

3 suggestions

Summarize the key evidence or reasoning used by Michael Barr and other governors, such as references to historical episodes, stress-test results, or research on supervisory intensity and bank risk.

Where possible, link their concerns to specific mechanisms (e.g., how fewer process-related warnings might allow risk-management failures to accumulate) rather than just stating that they are worried.

Clarify that these are their views and may be contested, and, if space allows, include any counterarguments from other officials or experts.