Talking point

A talking point is a concise, pre-formulated statement or argument intended to support a position, facilitate persuasion, or guide discussion, commonly employed in political communication, public relations, and public speaking to ensure message consistency and memorability.^[1] These points distill complex ideas into simple, repeatable phrases that speakers can deploy flexibly during interviews, debates, or presentations, often prioritizing rhetorical impact over exhaustive detail.^[2][3] Originating in the mid-19th century as elements lending evidentiary weight to commercial or argumentative claims, the term evolved in the 20th century through public relations practices into structured tools for media and political strategy, emphasizing brevity, jargon avoidance, and alignment with core narratives.^[4][1] In political contexts, talking points serve to frame issues favorably, enabling spokespersons to redirect conversations toward advantageous terrain while minimizing deviations that could expose weaknesses; critics, however, contend they can foster superficial discourse by substituting scripted assertions for substantive engagement.^[1][2] Effective examples incorporate rhetorical techniques like alliteration or parallelism to enhance recall and influence, as seen in policy advocacy where they underpin campaigns or legislative pitches.^[5]

Definition and Characteristics

Core Definition and Purpose

A talking point constitutes a succinct, pre-formulated statement or argument crafted to encapsulate and advance a specific position or agenda, particularly in arenas requiring rapid, persuasive communication such as politics, advocacy, and public discourse.^[1] These elements are designed to distill complex ideas into memorable, easily repeatable phrases that lend evidentiary or rhetorical support to broader claims, functioning as modular components in speeches, interviews, or debates. Unlike exhaustive expositions, talking points prioritize brevity and clarity, often limited to one or two sentences per idea, to facilitate quick delivery under time constraints or scrutiny.^[2] The primary purpose of talking points lies in their role as tools for strategic messaging, enabling communicators to maintain consistency, frame narratives, and shape audience perceptions efficiently. In political contexts, they allow spokespersons to align with organizational or campaign objectives, counter adversaries preemptively, and embed key themes into public consciousness through repetition across media channels.^[6] This mechanism draws from rhetorical principles of persuasion, emphasizing simplicity and emotional appeal to bypass detailed scrutiny, as evidenced by their widespread adoption in policy briefings where policymakers must convey positions without jargon or elaboration.^[7] By reducing multifaceted issues to digestible "soundbites," talking points enhance memorability and viral potential, though this condensation can sometimes obscure nuances or empirical complexities inherent in the underlying data.^[5]

Key Features of Effective Talking Points

Effective talking points distill complex positions into succinct, targeted statements designed for rapid dissemination and retention, prioritizing logical structure over exhaustive detail to facilitate consistent messaging across spokespersons.^[3] Research from communication training materials emphasizes that such points must align with predefined key messages—core ideas that guide broader narratives—ensuring they remain focused and persuasive without diluting the primary argument.^[6] This approach draws from rhetorical principles, where effectiveness hinges on adapting content to the audience's context while maintaining verifiable substance to withstand scrutiny.^[8] A primary feature is conciseness, limiting points to 3-5 bullets or phrases, each under 20 words, to enable quick verbal delivery and minimize cognitive overload during presentations or interviews.^{[3] [8]} Overly verbose formulations risk audience disengagement, as evidenced by public speaking guidelines that recommend stripping extraneous data to highlight actionable insights.^[9] Clarity follows, achieved through simple, active-voice language free of jargon, ensuring accessibility to non-experts while preserving precision.^{[10] [11]} For instance, effective points employ concrete examples or data—such as "Unemployment rose 2.3% in Q2 2023 due to policy X"—over abstract generalizations, enhancing comprehension and recall.^{[8] [6]} Audience relevance demands tailoring content to specific listener priorities, incorporating their values or concerns to foster connection without compromising factual integrity.^[8] Communication analyses note that points ignoring demographic or situational factors, like regional economic data, fail to persuade, as they neglect causal links between policy and outcomes.^[9] Memorability is bolstered by repetition of phrasing and vivid, repeatable hooks, akin to rhetorical devices that embed ideas through familiarity rather than novelty.^[12] Studies in persuasion underscore how such repetition reinforces neural pathways for retention, provided the content rests on empirical anchors like statistics from official reports.^[13] Finally, evidence-based support underpins credibility, integrating verifiable facts or logical chains to counter rebuttals, distinguishing robust points from mere assertions.^[8] While emotional resonance can amplify impact, overreliance on pathos without logos invites dismissal, as seen in critiques of unsubstantiated claims in debates.^{[14] [15]}

Historical Origins

Early Rhetorical Precursors

The origins of concise persuasive messaging akin to modern talking points emerged in ancient Greece during the 5th century BCE, coinciding with the development of democratic assemblies in Athens where citizens required skills to advocate positions succinctly amid time constraints and large audiences. Sophists like Gorgias (c. 483–375 BCE) and Protagoras (c. 490–420 BCE) pioneered rhetorical training focused on stylistic devices such as antithesis and parallelism to make arguments memorable and impactful, prioritizing persuasion over strict truth in forensic and deliberative settings.^[16][17] Aristotle (384–322 BCE) systematized these approaches in his treatise Rhetoric, composed around 350 BCE, by introducing the enthymeme—a rhetorical syllogism abbreviated for oral contexts, relying on probable premises shared with the audience rather than full logical deduction. This technique enabled orators to convey complex political or ethical arguments in brief, audience-adapted forms, emphasizing ethos, pathos, and logos as modes of proof to construct targeted, repeatable assertions. Enthymemes functioned as proto-talking points by encapsulating causal inferences and value judgments in digestible units, facilitating quick audience alignment in assemblies.^[18][19] Roman orators adapted Greek methods, with Cicero (106–43 BCE) exemplifying their application in political crises through his First Catilinarian Oration on November 8, 63 BCE, which opened with the direct interrogative "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" ("How long, then, will you abuse our patience, Catiline?"). This phrase, repeated and echoed in subsequent speeches, served as a concise indictment rallying senators against conspiracy, embodying Cicero's advocacy in De Oratore (55 BCE) for vivid, structured style that prioritized pointed sententiae—wise, aphoristic statements—to reinforce core arguments and aid memorization. Such devices underscored rhetoric's role in distilling multifaceted threats into singular, persuasive hooks for public mobilization.^[20][21]

Emergence in Modern Political Communication

The formalized use of talking points in modern political communication arose from public relations techniques adapted to the constraints of broadcast media, emphasizing brevity and repetition to penetrate short attention spans. Originating in commercial PR and media training, where spokespersons received bullet-point summaries to handle interviews, the practice entered high-level politics during the late 1960s. White House speechwriter William Safire recounted that President Richard Nixon, seeking adaptable guidance for unscripted appearances, requested "a page of talking points" rather than rigid speeches, marking an early institutional embrace of the format for message discipline amid growing media scrutiny.^[1] Television's dominance accelerated this trend, as networks prioritized visual impact and sound bites—concise excerpts fitting 30- to 60-second segments—over substantive debate. By the 1980s, with the launch of cable outlets like CNN in 1980, politicians faced pressure to craft pre-tested phrases that could withstand editing and repetition across airings. Analysis of U.S. network news from 1968 to 1988 shows presidential sound bites shrinking from 42.9 seconds to 9.4 seconds on average, compelling campaigns to prioritize distillable "points" that retained persuasive force when isolated from context.^[22] The 1990s saw talking points evolve into partisan weapons, with empirical shifts in legislative rhetoric underscoring their strategic entrenchment. A Stanford study of over 25 million words from U.S. House speeches revealed a sharp post-1994 increase in lawmakers' reliance on party-aligned phrases, aligning with the Republican Congress's "Contract with America" under Newt Gingrich, which deployed unified messaging to dominate media cycles. This period's innovations, including focus-group testing by consultants like Frank Luntz—who refined terminology for emotional resonance—solidified talking points as essential for framing narratives in fragmented, adversarial media landscapes.^[23][24]

Applications Across Contexts

In Politics and Advocacy

In political campaigns, talking points function as pre-formulated, concise statements that candidates, surrogates, and party operatives use to articulate policy positions consistently across speeches, debates, and media interviews. These points prioritize simplicity and repetition to embed key messages in the public mind, often distilling multifaceted issues like economic policy or national security into one- or two-sentence summaries that avoid jargon and emphasize emotional or value-based appeals. For example, political parties distribute daily or issue-specific talking points to ensure alignment, as seen in U.S. congressional races where campaigns provide bullet-point guides on topics such as tax reform, citing data like projected revenue impacts to bolster claims.^[1][5] This approach leverages rhetorical brevity, which research indicates enhances persuasion by facilitating quicker cognitive processing over complex arguments.^[25] Advocacy groups employ talking points to lobby legislators and shape public opinion on targeted reforms, structuring them around a clear call to action, evidence-based impacts, and constituent anecdotes to personalize abstract policies. Organizations limit discussions to one or two issues per interaction, such as advocating for career and technical education funding by highlighting budget cut effects on job training programs with specific enrollment statistics.^[26][27] In grassroots efforts, groups like the American Civil Liberties Union craft points to oppose measures perceived as restricting speech, framing them as threats to educational freedom with examples of affected curricula.^[28] Similarly, professional associations, such as the American Society of Anesthesiologists, use tailored points in campaigns to influence healthcare regulations, mobilizing members with scripted arguments on patient safety metrics derived from clinical data.^[29] The strategic deployment of talking points in both domains enables rapid response to opponents while maintaining message discipline, though their effectiveness hinges on empirical backing rather than unsubstantiated assertions. In policy hearings, advocates present points as short, memorable nuggets—ideally one sentence each—to aid policymakers' retention and decision-making under time pressure.^[2] This method has proven instrumental in advancing legislative agendas, as evidenced by successful advocacy for bills where consistent repetition of core phrases correlates with shifts in congressional support, per analyses of communication patterns in U.S. advocacy.^[30] However, reliance on such tools demands verification of underlying claims, as ungrounded points risk eroding credibility when scrutinized.^[6]

In Business, Media, and Advertising

In business settings, talking points function as structured outlines of essential information, enabling executives, salespeople, and managers to deliver consistent, focused messages during presentations, negotiations, and internal briefings. These brief lists—typically comprising three to five bullet-point ideas—prioritize clarity and brevity to reinforce core objectives, such as value propositions or strategic priorities, without deviating into extraneous details. For example, in corporate strategy dissemination, they help align teams by distilling complex plans into actionable summaries, as recommended in frameworks emphasizing repetition of key themes across communications.^{[31] [8]} Their effectiveness stems from facilitating rapid recall under pressure, reducing cognitive load, and ensuring alignment with organizational goals, though scripted adherence can sometimes undermine genuine dialogue if not balanced with adaptability.^[3] Within media relations, talking points equip spokespersons for interviews, press conferences, and crisis responses by providing predefined responses that steer discussions toward favorable narratives while anticipating adversarial questions. Prepared in advance, they often include problem statements, proposed solutions, and supporting data, allowing representatives to pivot from off-topic inquiries back to approved messaging—such as emphasizing a company's innovation track record amid regulatory scrutiny. This approach minimizes misstatements and enhances media coverage control, with structures incorporating soundbites optimized for broadcast brevity, typically 10-15 seconds long.^{[32] [33]} Empirical observations from public relations practice indicate they improve message consistency across multiple outlets, though critics note that overly rigid scripts may appear evasive, potentially eroding spokesperson credibility in unscripted formats.^[34] In advertising and marketing, talking points underpin the creation of key messages that distill brand stories into persuasive, audience-targeted propositions, often serving as the foundation for campaigns, pitches, and promotional materials. They highlight problem-solution dynamics, such as positioning a product as the optimal fix for consumer pain points, and evolve into slogans or taglines for memorability—exemplified by frameworks where three core points guide ad copy to evoke emotional resonance alongside factual benefits. Marketing analyses underscore their role in unifying cross-channel efforts, from social media to billboards, fostering brand recall through repetition of simplified ideas.^{[35] [6]} Effectiveness is evidenced by higher engagement metrics in campaigns employing focused messaging, as opposed to diffuse narratives, though success depends on grounding points in verifiable data rather than unsubstantiated hype to avoid consumer skepticism.^[36]

Strategic and Psychological Mechanisms

Framing and Persuasion Techniques

Talking points employ framing to selectively highlight attributes of an issue, shaping audience perceptions by making certain interpretations more salient than others. This technique defines problems and solutions in ways that resonate with preexisting values, such as portraying economic policies as either "job creators" or "corporate giveaways" to evoke support or opposition accordingly.^{[37] [38]} Linguistic framing tools, including grammatical choices like verb aspect, influence how actions are mentally simulated; for instance, phrasing a politician's misconduct in the past progressive tense (e.g., "was accepting bribes") emphasizes ongoing behavior, heightening perceived severity and reducing re-election likelihood in experimental settings.^[39] Metaphors, such as motion-based ones (e.g., "moving the country forward" versus "turning it around"), ground abstract policies in concrete experiences, activating supportive cognitive frames.^[39] Persuasion techniques in talking points integrate Aristotle's modes—ethos (credibility of the source), pathos (emotional appeal), and logos (logical reasoning)—to build audience buy-in. Ethos is conveyed through association with authoritative figures or data, pathos via vivid anecdotes or threat narratives (e.g., framing immigration as an existential risk to security and jobs), and logos through distilled facts avoiding complexity.^{[40] [38] [41]} Repetition amplifies effectiveness by exploiting the illusory truth effect, where reiterated simple statements gain perceived credibility through familiarity, even if unsubstantiated; political speeches repeating slogans like "Make America Great Again" leverage this for message entrenchment.^{[42] [43]} Simplicity in phrasing—eschewing jargon for direct language—enhances comprehension and retention, particularly in populist contexts where it contrasts with perceived elite obfuscation.^{[44] [45]} These mechanisms collectively prioritize memorability and emotional resonance over exhaustive detail, facilitating rapid dissemination in media and advocacy.^[46]

Empirical Evidence on Effectiveness

Empirical research on the effectiveness of talking points, which often rely on framing, repetition, and simplification to convey political or advocacy messages, indicates modest persuasive impacts under controlled conditions, with effects diminishing in real-world settings featuring competing information and audience prior knowledge. A meta-analysis of 36 studies encompassing over 7,000 participants found that political framing effects—such as gain versus loss frames—produce an average standardized effect size of d = 0.26, statistically significant but small in magnitude, suggesting frames can shift attitudes by highlighting selective issue attributes but rarely overcome deeply held beliefs.^[47] These effects are stronger for equivalent frames (e.g., describing the same policy outcome differently) than for inequivalent ones and are moderated by individual factors like political sophistication, where low-knowledge audiences show greater susceptibility (up to d = 0.40) compared to experts, whose responses align more with underlying policy merits.^[47] Repetition of talking points leverages the illusory truth effect, whereby familiar statements are rated as more credible regardless of factual accuracy, as demonstrated in experiments where statements repeated three to six times increased perceived truth by 10-20% over novel ones.^[48] However, excessive repetition (beyond 3-5 exposures) can trigger reactance, reducing source trust and perceived message sincerity, particularly if audiences detect manipulative intent, with one study showing a 15% drop in credibility for high-frequency repeats.^[49] In political contexts, repeated messaging during campaigns yields small vote intention shifts (e.g., 1-2 percentage points per ad exposure cycle), amplified when aligned with audience predispositions but neutralized by counter-messaging.^[50] Simplification in talking points, akin to soundbites or populist rhetoric, aids retention among low-information voters by reducing cognitive load, with experiments showing concise messages (under 15 words) outperforming detailed ones in recall (up to 25% higher) and short-term attitude favorability.^[44] Yet, this brevity risks oversimplification, correlating with lower policy comprehension; field studies of campaign ads found simplified frames increased immediate agreement by 5-10% but failed to sustain influence beyond one week without reinforcement, especially against complex counterarguments.^[51] Overall, while talking points facilitate message dissemination in fragmented media environments, their persuasive power is constrained by audience expertise, exposure to alternatives, and contextual factors, with lab effects (d ≈ 0.20-0.30) often halving in naturalistic political scenarios due to selective exposure and motivated reasoning.^[47][51]

Criticisms and Controversies

Risks of Manipulation and Oversimplification

Talking points, by prioritizing brevity and repetition for persuasive impact, inherently risk oversimplifying intricate policy matters, such as economic reforms or foreign relations, which involve interdependent variables and trade-offs that defy reduction to single-sentence summaries. This compression can foster misconceptions, as audiences internalize partial truths without grasping underlying complexities, leading to policy preferences based on incomplete information. For example, framing fiscal austerity solely as a path to growth ignores empirical evidence of short-term contractionary effects observed in post-2008 European cases, where GDP declines averaged 4-7% in implemented programs. ^[52] Such oversimplification extends to causal attributions in political rhetoric, where talking points often attribute multifaceted societal issues—like crime rates or inequality—to isolated factors, disregarding multivariate analyses that reveal interactions among demographics, institutions, and economics. A 2025 analysis highlights 17 reasons why single-cause narratives mislead, including neglect of feedback loops and emergent properties, which talking points exacerbate by design to evade scrutiny. Empirical studies corroborate that exaggerated or reductive statements erode policy credibility, with experiments showing participants rating politicians' arguments as less valid when hyperbolic simplifications were detected, reducing endorsement by up to 20%.^{[53] [54]} Manipulation arises when talking points are deployed in coordinated campaigns to frame narratives selectively, omitting disconfirming data to shape perceptions without engaging evidence-based dialogue. Discourse analysts note that such strategies exploit cognitive biases like confirmation bias, where repeated simple messages create illusory familiarity mistaken for truth, as seen in propaganda models where elite messaging bypasses rational deliberation. In public discourse, this manifests as "scripted" responses that prioritize ideological alignment over factual rebuttal, contributing to polarized echo chambers; surveys indicate 78% of Americans view aggressive, simplified political language as heightening violence risks by entrenching divisions.^{[55] [56]} Critics argue this reliance undermines democratic deliberation, as talking points discourage substantive engagement, fostering a soundbite-driven environment where nuance is sacrificed for viral appeal, with hyperbole correlating to diminished belief in claims over time. While proponents claim they democratize complex ideas, evidence from rhetoric studies shows they amplify manipulation when sourced from biased institutions, such as partisan think tanks, whose outputs often cherry-pick data to fit agendas, as meta-analyses reveal systemic selective reporting in policy briefs.^{[57] [58]}

Impact on Public Discourse and Democracy

Talking points, by distilling complex policy positions into repeatable phrases, have streamlined political communication but often foster a fragmented public discourse characterized by repetition over substantive engagement. In mass-mediated environments, their brevity aligns with attention constraints, enabling widespread dissemination via social media and news cycles, yet this prioritizes memorability over comprehensive analysis. Studies on analogous soundbites indicate that shortened political utterances reduce the inclusion of justifications, with empirical analysis across U.S., German, and Dutch election coverage showing a positive correlation between quote length and argumentative depth—shorter segments (under 10 seconds) appearing in 70-80% of broadcast clips by the 2010s, correlating with diminished public argument quality.^[59][60] This dynamic contributes to polarization by entrenching partisan echo chambers, where aligned groups amplify shared talking points while dismissing alternatives, limiting cross-ideological dialogue. Repetition of such phrases leverages psychological mechanisms like the illusory truth effect, wherein familiarity breeds perceived validity, even among skeptics; experiments demonstrate that reiterated political soundbites can subtly shift attitudes over time, particularly negative ones, influencing voter heuristics rather than policy scrutiny. In democratic contexts, this risks eroding deliberative quality, as evidenced by Pew surveys where 85% of Americans in 2019 viewed national political discourse as less civil and fact-based than two decades prior, attributing declines to media-driven simplification.^[61][56][62] On democratic processes, talking points can undermine informed consent by favoring emotional resonance over empirical evaluation, as seen in case analyses of reforms like France's 2023 pension changes, where consistent opposition phrasing (e.g., emphasizing public rejection rates of 70-90%) shaped voter dissatisfaction across ideologies, yet ideological priors limited broader persuasion. While enabling underdog campaigns to compete via viral simplicity, their strategic deployment often amplifies manipulation risks, with research linking soundbite dominance to heightened affective divides and reduced trust in institutions—public confidence in U.S. democracy dipping below 30% in polarized eras dominated by slogan-heavy rhetoric. This oversimplification privileges media savvy over governance depth, potentially skewing electoral outcomes toward populism, though no causal studies definitively quantify talking points' net democratic detriment amid confounding media evolutions.^[63][64][65]

Notable Examples and Case Studies

Historical Political Examples

Marcus Tullius Cicero's Catilinarian Orations, delivered in 63 BC, represent an early exemplar of political talking points in action. On November 7, 63 BC, Cicero addressed the Roman Senate in the First Catilinarian Oration, accusing Lucius Sergius Catilina of plotting to assassinate consuls and seize power through arson and massacre.^[66] He distilled the conspiracy's threats into repetitive, incisive phrases, such as the opening "Quo usque tandem abutere, Catilina, patientia nostra?" ("How long, Catiline, will you abuse our patience?"), which framed Catiline's actions as an intolerable abuse demanding immediate expulsion.^[67] These points emphasized Catiline's moral depravity, ties to debt-ridden criminals, and disregard for Roman institutions, persuading the Senate to declare him a public enemy without trial.^[66] Subsequent orations reinforced these themes to the people and Senate, portraying Cicero as the vigilant savior of the Republic while simplifying legal complexities into calls for unity against internal subversion. The speeches' structure—rhetorical questions, lists of Catiline's alleged crimes, and contrasts between republican virtue and conspiratorial vice—enabled allies to echo core arguments in assemblies, contributing to Catiline's flight and the conspiracy's suppression by mid-November 63 BC.^[67] This approach highlighted talking points' role in crisis rhetoric, prioritizing emotional resonance and binary framing over exhaustive evidence to mobilize support. In 19th-century America, Abraham Lincoln employed talking points during the 1858 Senate campaign debates against Stephen Douglas to contest the expansion of slavery. Lincoln's June 16, 1858, speech introduced the phrase "A house divided against itself cannot stand," arguing that the Union could not endure half slave and half free, a biblical allusion repurposed to underscore slavery's incompatibility with national unity.^[68] Across seven debates from August to October 1858, Lincoln reiterated points on slavery's moral evil, the Kansas-Nebraska Act's repeal of the Missouri Compromise, and Douglas's "popular sovereignty" doctrine as enabling moral compromise.^[68] These distilled arguments challenged Douglas's positions without alienating moderates, elevating the slavery issue nationally despite Lincoln's electoral loss.^[68] Ronald Reagan's "A Time for Choosing" speech on October 27, 1964, showcased talking points in mid-20th-century advocacy, supporting Barry Goldwater's presidential bid. Delivered as a televised address, it framed the Cold War as a stark choice between freedom and totalitarianism, criticizing welfare state expansions as paths to servitude and extolling individual liberty with lines like "You and I have a rendezvous with destiny."^[69] Reagan's points—opposition to communism, fiscal conservatism, and anti-government overreach—resonated, boosting Republican fundraising and foreshadowing his 1980 presidency.^[69] The speech's clarity and repetition of ideological contrasts demonstrated talking points' efficacy in shifting voter perceptions amid ideological battles.

Contemporary Usage in the 2020s

In the 2020s, talking points have proliferated through digital platforms, enabling rapid dissemination and iteration in response to breaking events, with social media usage for news rising by 6 percentage points globally by 2025.^[70] Politicians and advocates employ them to distill complex issues into memorable phrases, often optimized for short-form videos on sites like TikTok and X, where algorithmic amplification favors repetitive, emotionally charged messaging over nuanced debate. This shift has intensified partisan echo chambers, as evidenced by divergent voter priorities: in the U.S., 81% of registered voters rated the economy as very important to their 2024 presidential choice, prompting campaigns to frame it through competing lenses like "Biden's inflation disaster" versus "Trump's tariff-induced price hikes."^[71] A prominent case in the 2024 U.S. election involved Republican talking points centered on border security and economic relief, including promises of "the largest deportation operation in American history" and eliminating taxes on tips to appeal to working-class voters.^[72] The GOP platform explicitly outlined these under "America First," emphasizing sealing the border and slashing energy costs, which aligned with Gallup polling showing immigration and the economy as top voter concerns, each cited by over 50% as influential.^{[73] [74]} Democrats countered with points on "protecting freedoms," particularly reproductive rights post the 2022 Dobbs decision, and warnings of democratic erosion under a second Trump term, though these resonated less broadly amid economic discontent.^[75] Internationally, similar patterns emerged, such as the UK's Conservative Party's "stop the boats" refrain during the 2024 election, targeting illegal Channel crossings that reached 45,774 in 2022, to underscore immigration control amid declining poll numbers. In advocacy beyond elections, environmental groups pushed "climate emergency" framing, citing IPCC data on 1.1°C warming since pre-industrial levels, while skeptics countered with "energy security" points highlighting Europe's 2022 gas crisis costs exceeding €500 billion. These examples illustrate talking points' role in simplifying causal debates—e.g., linking policy to voter-perceived realities like inflation at 9.1% peaks in 2022—often prioritizing persuasion over empirical depth, with mainstream outlets like CNN amplifying certain narratives despite documented left-leaning biases in coverage.^[76]