Injunction sought in row between medicinal cannabis firms. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism

Use of dramatic or emotionally charged language to make the story seem more intense or provocative than the bare facts warrant.

The sentence: "Medicinal cannabis company Ora Pharm is up in arms over what chief executive Zoe Reece dubs as ‘malicious behaviour’ by a rival firm." The phrase "up in arms" is a colloquial, dramatic expression that amplifies the sense of conflict beyond a neutral description such as "is disputing" or "is challenging". It adds emotional colour rather than factual information.

3 suggestions

Replace "is up in arms over" with a more neutral phrase such as "is disputing" or "is challenging".

Rephrase the sentence as: "Medicinal cannabis company Ora Pharm is disputing what chief executive Zoe Reece describes as ‘malicious behaviour’ by a rival firm."

Avoid idiomatic, emotionally loaded expressions in straight news leads and stick to precise descriptions of actions (e.g., "is seeking an injunction", "has filed legal action").

Appeal to emotion

Relying on emotionally charged wording or characterizations to influence readers’ attitudes rather than presenting neutral, verifiable facts.

The article foregrounds the CEO’s characterization of a rival’s conduct as "malicious behaviour" and pairs it with "up in arms". While the quote is attributed, the lead emphasizes emotional framing (malice, anger) before providing factual detail about the legal claim. This can predispose readers to view the rival negatively before hearing their side or the specifics of the dispute.

3 suggestions

Lead with the factual development: e.g., "Ora Pharm is seeking an injunction against importer Nubu over claims relating to Helius Therapeutics’ production of medicines."

Then introduce the emotional characterization clearly as one party’s allegation: "Chief executive Zoe Reece alleges the rival’s conduct amounts to ‘malicious behaviour’."

Balance the emotional quote with any response or denial from NUBU or Helius in the same visible section, or explicitly note that their response was sought but not yet available.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s claims or framing more prominently or sympathetically than the other side’s, especially in the absence of equivalent space or detail for the opposing view.

In the visible portion, Ora Pharm’s perspective is highlighted: it is "up in arms" and its CEO’s description of "malicious behaviour" is quoted. NUBU and Helius are mentioned only as the alleged wrongdoers ("a claim by importer Nubu that Helius Therapeutics is no longer producing medicines" and "a rival firm"), with no visible quote, explanation, or context from their side. Because the article is truncated, it is unclear whether their views are presented later, but the accessible section is tilted toward Ora Pharm’s framing.

3 suggestions

In the opening visible section, include at least a brief, clearly attributed response or position from NUBU and/or Helius (e.g., "NUBU rejects the allegation and says…").

If no comment was available, state this explicitly: "NUBU did not respond to requests for comment by deadline."

Rephrase references to NUBU and Helius to be more neutral and specific, e.g., "importer NUBU Pharmaceuticals, which has claimed that Helius Therapeutics is no longer producing medicines" rather than "a rival firm".

Biased language

Use of wording that implicitly takes a side or carries a value judgment, rather than neutral, descriptive terms.

The combination of "up in arms" and "malicious behaviour" in the lead frames the rival firm in a strongly negative light. While "malicious behaviour" is in quotes and attributed to the CEO, the narrative structure foregrounds this judgmental language before any neutral description of what the rival allegedly did.

3 suggestions

Clarify that "malicious behaviour" is an allegation, not an established fact, by adding wording such as "alleged" or "what she characterizes as" and by quickly following with factual description of the conduct in question.

Avoid idioms like "up in arms" and instead use neutral verbs such as "objects", "disputes", or "challenges".

Ensure that any evaluative terms are clearly marked as quotes or paraphrases of specific individuals, and balance them with neutral context and, where possible, the other side’s characterization.