>>2098
>Finance is lot of double speak and gibberish. Reading it in somebodies else's language must be hell.
it´s a matter of interpretation. Not opinionated conclusions but what you can extract from it and check its results reflect X consequences and effect over certain entities or parts of the society. It´s not that hard even though I had to read a couple of Spanish sites about it and more perspectives to step into it more properly. Besides, I only heard about vulture funds like in 2012 and a few times here and there, but I didn´t know what the actual term meant nor where it came from. Turns out that you have linked the PIONEER of that practice. So yeah, it felt like a different language because of those key words.

>It also can be used to establish a basic fact to someone who otherwise won't listen.
oh boy, yeah. A lot aren´t that open to different opinions and get even blinded into their own bubble, stuck with it as if it were your favorite football team.
>The more mainstream media, for as bad as it is, can't fake things entirely. Fact checkers are still fact checkers even when they have a leftest bias and sometime of the most egregious claims and hyperbolic claims as false, events maybe later characterized a certain way, but that little spin may not be there in the initial reports (cnn I know will deceptively edit interviews that didn't go well for example).
political bias. If they faked it completely, someone could denounce them for being unprofessional and lose money because of that. Sometimes that hyperbolic claim turns out to be so exaggerated that it feels like you are reading propaganda . Again, it´s not bad to have certain bias and try to focus on little aspects you find more convenient than others would do, the problem comes when they try to deny the reality or treat their citizens as stupid readers (I hope you don´t read a few journals over here, a little bit more of manipulation and they touch the communist zone)

>Some investigative reporters in the mainstream still love a scandal no matter who is from, etc. Even the huffpost buzzfeed tier left can be useful when you bring up all the awkward times they redact claims made.
all the sources are useful in order to notice a contrast. You can check how the country is going by checking the most popular headlines in the most famous press sites in 30 minutes or so, you notices the general patterns out of the general news. The conclusions are up to you by noticing those changes. Any scandal though, generates easy clicks, no wonder they are looking for something saucy from time to time (otherwise they would get bored)

>Plus they can be easy to trap when they invoke authority of certain groups/institutions whose data supports some case at the moment they want to push, other the data from said groups may contain stuff they don't like, which can cause all sorts of problems when they cite it as an authority.
that´s the grace and beauty of politics. Not caring and unseeing about the inconvenient stuff for your weapons and the opposition brings up to the table the other part out of it. Normally, it´s lacks of context or just saying partially those news. Or filling that story with an unimportant interview or things like that.

Very clever moves in fact. I highly doubt you get contradicted and manipulated but your experience would have told you so long ago before I do here.