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 | 2,001 |
|---|---|
| Articles containing it | 1,325 |
| Share of all recorded techniques | 3.5% |
| Average manipulation score where present | 54.4 (corpus average 45.1) |
Outlets where we have recorded it most
| Outlet | Instances recorded |
|---|---|
| ynetnews.com | 234 |
| israelnationalnews.com | 215 |
| rt.com | 123 |
| 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
"amid the ongoing nuclear threat tit-for-tat involving European officials"
This phrase is vague about who exactly is issuing these 'nuclear threats' and what the 'tit-for-tat' specifically entails, obscuring the source and nature of the escalation.
Putin: Ready To Use 'All Weapons' Including Nuclear, If Kaliningrad Attacked"Asked what assistance Washington is providing in response to the current threat, Justiniano declined to say whether the U.S. was supplying operational intelligence or other direct assistance."
Justiniano's refusal to provide specific details about US assistance, stating only that Bolivia wants to 'deepen this cooperation,' is vague. While some secrecy might be justified in security matters, the lack of clarity about 'other direct assistance' could be seen as obscuring the nature of the support.
EXCLUSIVE: Trump’s new security alliance faces first real-world test deep in South America as troops deploy"the growing concern about other issues have lowered the urgency of the migration issue for most Americans."
Uses vague and undefined terms ('growing concern about other issues') to obscure specific causal or contextual factors, making it difficult to assess the actual reasoning behind shifting public priorities.
Harvard Harris Poll: 77 Percent Want All Migrant Criminals Deported"We are working closely with our colleagues in the United States of America."
This statement provides no substantive information about the nature of cooperation, intelligence sharing, or investigative progress. It uses vague, diplomatic language to convey seriousness and alliance solidarity without offering factual clarity, potentially obscuring the lack of concrete details in the official response.
UK says Iran may be linked to alleged RAF Fairford plot, drawing denial"The insiders, who were described as being familiar with the department’s internal casualty accounting data, told the newspaper that at least 22 US military personnel had died, four more than the 18 fatalities listed by the department’s 'Defense Casualty Analysis System.'"
The article refers to 'insiders' without specifying their roles, identities, or access level, and attributes conflicting data to them without further clarification or verification. This vague sourcing contributes to ambiguity about the reliability of the higher casualty figure, and the lack of transparency around the term 'insiders' functions as obfuscation, making it difficult for the reader to assess the credibility of the claim.
Pentagon quietly adds dozens to tally of troops wounded amid war on Iran"“One standard Defendants appear to offer—reflected in letters they sent to Plaintiffs on September 22, 2026, identifying their objectionable reporting—is so vague it hardly does the trick,” Kelly said, referring to Trump administration’s allegation that one of the outlets “exhibited behavior in viol…"
The administration’s justification—'violating standards of professionalism and decorum'—is vague and undefined, making it difficult to assess or challenge. The judge explicitly notes this lack of clarity, which qualifies as obfuscation because it conceals the actual reasoning behind the ban.
CNN, MS NOW and Politico go back to court after reporters were denied access to the White House despite a court order | CNN Politics"behind which lies a deeper plan by Japan's conservative camp to promote constitutional revision and military expansion"
The phrase 'deeper plan' is vague and lacks specific evidence or sourcing. It suggests a hidden, coordinated strategy without clarifying who exactly is involved, what the plan entails, or how it is being executed, thus obscuring the actual political dynamics behind opaque language.
95 years on, some in Japan still cling to militarist fantasies: Global Times editorial"The Post understands that in the view of Israeli intelligence, this means that Israel has been racing ahead with new military surprises and tactics to unleash against Tehran in any potential future new conflict."
Phrases like 'new military surprises' and 'racing ahead' are deliberately vague and lack concrete detail, obscuring the actual nature of capabilities or plans while creating an impression of decisive advantage, thus avoiding accountability for specific claims.
IDF's war on all fronts: How Eyal Zamir is managing threats from Iran, Lebanon, Gaza, and West BankCommon 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