Audio guidance now live at Scotia ATMs. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion / mild promotional framing

Using positive, feel‑good language to create a favorable impression without providing evidence or balancing perspectives.

“We believe banking should be accessible to everyone and we are proud to introduce that our ATMs now have audio guidance. This feature enables individuals in the sight loss community to conduct transactions with greater independence, facilitating a seamless experience at our ATMs,” the bank said in a release to customers. This is a direct quote from the bank’s press release. Phrases like “we are proud,” “greater independence,” and “seamless experience” are promotional and emotionally positive, and the claims about independence and seamlessness are not supported by data, user feedback, or any independent assessment.

3 suggestions

Attribute clearly as promotional language and separate it from the reporter’s voice, for example: “In a statement, the bank described the feature as enabling ‘greater independence’ and a ‘seamless experience’ for customers with sight loss.”

Add neutral context or evidence, such as: “The bank did not provide data or user testing results to support its description of the experience as ‘seamless.’”

Rephrase in neutral, descriptive terms in the journalist’s voice: “According to the bank, the feature is intended to make it easier for customers with sight loss to conduct transactions independently.”

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims as fact or likely outcome without evidence, data, or independent verification.

“This feature enables individuals in the sight loss community to conduct transactions with greater independence, facilitating a seamless experience at our ATMs.” The article does not provide any user studies, accessibility audits, or feedback from people in the sight loss community to substantiate that the experience is indeed ‘seamless’ or that it reliably results in ‘greater independence’ for users.

3 suggestions

Qualify the claim and keep it clearly as the bank’s assertion: “The bank says the feature is designed to enable individuals in the sight loss community to conduct transactions with greater independence and to provide a ‘seamless’ experience.”

Add a note on the lack of independent evidence: “No independent evaluation of the feature’s effectiveness was provided.”

Include perspectives from users or advocacy groups, for example: “A representative of a local vision‑impairment advocacy group said they welcomed the initiative but had not yet evaluated how well it works in practice.”

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side’s perspective (here, the bank’s) without any independent or user perspective, even when the topic directly affects a specific group.

The article consists almost entirely of the bank’s announcement and instructions. There are no quotes or reactions from: - Customers using the ATMs - Members of the sight loss community - Accessibility experts or advocates Given that the article frames the feature as an accessibility improvement, the absence of any independent or user voice makes the coverage one‑sided, even though it is not overtly biased in tone.

3 suggestions

Include at least one comment from a person with sight loss who has used similar features or has tried this one, describing benefits and any limitations.

Add a brief expert or advocacy‑group perspective on best practices for accessible ATMs and how this feature compares.

Clarify the nature of the piece as a brief announcement if no other perspectives are added, e.g., “In a statement on Friday, Scotiabank announced…” and avoid implying comprehensive coverage of the accessibility impact.