Obfuscation/Vagueness
Using language imprecise enough that the claim cannot be checked, while still leaving an impression.
Obfuscation removes what would let a reader check a claim, and keeps everything that makes it land. The actor, the quantity or the timeframe have been removed; vagueness is the passive voice's main employer — shots were fired, casualties were reported, the area was cleared. A reader finishes the paragraph feeling informed and holding nothing.
It is the seventh most common technique we record, about 4% of all instances, and unusually repetitive: roughly three recorded instances for every two articles that carry it, second only to loaded language. Articles containing it average 54.4 on the manipulation score against a corpus average of 45.9, and three in four also carry loaded language, so it rarely arrives as an isolated lapse.
The distinction that matters most is between vagueness and honest uncertainty. A reporter who writes that it is not yet clear whether the strike hit the depot is being careful: the fact is unsettled, and saying so beats resolving it. We do not count hedged attribution used because the record is incomplete, nor technical language that is exact in its field. What we count is imprecision that removes something the article could have supplied — "some officials" where a name was available and printable, "a number of" where a figure has been published.
Two exclusions. An official's own evasive phrasing, quoted accurately, is the subject being reported: an article printing that procedures were not followed is documenting the speaker's wording. And under the power-direction rule the bar for flagging anything at all in coverage documenting harm to a civilian population is deliberately very high; the form we pursue hardest runs the other way, as agentless phrasing that dissolves responsibility for it — civilians who died in the vicinity, rather than were killed by an identified strike. That sits beside euphemism, which can do either job; the boundary is that minimisation shrinks a documented harm, obfuscation removes who caused it.
What we have recorded
| Instances recorded | 1,977 |
|---|---|
| Articles containing it | 1,301 |
| Share of all recorded techniques | 4.2% |
| Average manipulation score where present | 54.4 (corpus average 45.9) |
Outlets where we have recorded it most
| Outlet | Instances recorded |
|---|---|
| ynetnews.com | 234 |
| israelnationalnews.com | 215 |
| rt.com | 122 |
| israelhayom.com | 110 |
| middleeasteye.net | 109 |
Counts reflect the articles we have analyzed, which are not a representative sample of any outlet's output.
Recent examples
"had attempted to advance terror attacks"
Uses vague and undefined phrasing ('attempted to advance terror attacks') that lacks specificity about the nature, timing, or evidence of such attempts. This ambiguity allows the statement to imply ongoing threat without substantiating active plots, thus obscuring the actual level of danger posed and potentially justifying lethal force with insufficient transparency.
IDF kills several terrorists in Gaza from Hamas, Palestinian Islamic Jihad, Army of Islam"the overwhelming majority of the regions’ populations supported the move"
Uses vague and unquantified language ('overwhelming majority') to assert consensus without providing verifiable data or acknowledging the contested nature of the referendums, which were conducted under Russian military control and rejected by Ukraine and most UN member states. This obscures the lack of independent verification.
Crimea not on Kiev’s agenda – Zelensky"A copy of the agreement obtained and verified by The Associated Press said that all weapons held by the Hamas-run police will be transferred to the U.S.-backed Palestinian technocratic committee..."
The phrase 'U.S.-backed Palestinian technocratic committee' uses vague and bureaucratic language to describe a body ('National Committee for the Administration of Gaza') whose composition, mandate, and legitimacy are not clearly explained. This obfuscates questions about accountability, representation, and democratic legitimacy, particularly in the absence of Palestinian public endorsement or clarity on its authority over Gaza’s future governance.
Hamas says it will disarm if Israel halts strikes and withdraws from Gaza, but obstacles remain"“The agreement is sharp, clear and detailed, and it cannot be interpreted in two ways,” the official said."
This claim asserts clarity and unambiguity in a highly complex political agreement, dismissing the possibility of differing interpretations. In reality, peace agreements often involve negotiated ambiguities. Asserting that it 'cannot be interpreted in two ways' obscures the inherent complexity and potential for dispute, presenting an oversimplified view of enforceability.
Trump says Board of Peace reached deal for Hamas’ complete disarmament in Gaza"troops shot towards a suspect “that approached the forces in a threatening manner,” after the suspect continued to get closer despite calls to stop. The announcement did not give further clarifications."
Describes a use of lethal force with vague and passive language ('shot towards', 'a suspect', 'threatening manner') while acknowledging lack of clarification, obscuring key details such as the outcome of the shooting, identity of the individual, or whether the threat was confirmed, thus minimizing transparency.
Israel will respond to Hezbollah striking of IDF bulldozer by drone, source tells 'Post'"CENTCOM described Cooper’s letter as merely a general security reminder"
Downplays the significance of restrictive measures by labeling them a 'general security reminder' while the article reports on potential phone confiscations and information controls, creating ambiguity around the severity and intent of the policy.
US troops told not to film Iranian strikes (VIDEOS)"Zelenskyy said in a nightly address on Saturday without offering a source for this information."
This sentence explicitly states that Zelenskyy provided no source, yet the claim is still presented prominently. The article does not clarify whether the claim is verified, leaving readers with a significant assertion shrouded in ambiguity. The failure to resolve or contextualize this lack of sourcing after presenting the claim creates a subtle form of obfuscation, where a major allegation is introduced but its reliability left undefined.
Russia wants 30,000 more North Korean troops for Ukraine war: Zelenskyy"The U.S. Trade Representative’s Office said it had carried out monthslong investigations into the trading practices of other economies to impose the tariffs."
The article reports the existence of 'monthslong investigations' but provides no details on methodology, criteria, or evidence, creating an impression of due diligence while leaving the basis for the tariffs unclear and unverifiable in the text.
U.S. sets new tariffs at 10% to 12.5% on 60 trade partnersCommon questions
Is careful hedging in a news report obfuscation?
No. When a fact is genuinely unsettled, writing that it is not yet clear is better journalism than resolving it. We count imprecision that removes something the article could have supplied, never honesty about what is not yet known.
Does the passive voice always count as this technique?
No. The passive is ordinary English and often the clearest construction available. We flag it where it removes an actor the article could have named, and most closely where naming would identify who caused a documented harm.
What is the difference between this and minimisation?
Minimisation shrinks the size of a documented harm; obfuscation removes who caused it. Euphemism frequently does both, and we record it under whichever the wording actually achieves rather than under both.
Does quoting an official's evasive answer count against the article?
No. Evasive phrasing quoted accurately is the subject being reported, and we place it with the speaker. We flag the article only where it adopts that vagueness in its own voice.
Other Manipulative Wording techniques
Check an article for obfuscation/vagueness and 22 other techniques.
Analyze a URL