Of course, words are not dodgy since they have no meaning other than the significance that authors and readers or listeners give them.
But certainly, how a journalist uses verbs reveals much about the journalist. For example, have you noticed how a public figure is often reported as "trying" to do or say something?
Weirdly, a television journalist will share a video clip that clearly shows a public figure taking an action or making a comment–then the journalist paraphrases what we've just seen with a redraft of what the public figure is "trying" to do or say.
Especially when the verb "try" occurs like this repeatedly in successive sentences, it's at least distracting, or puzzling, or downright annoying. At worst, the insertions insult our abilities, since we've just seen or heard what the public figure did or said. With some journalists, these qualifiers punctuate news reports like raisins in a fruit cake.
The cumulative effect is to imply the public figure is someone who is continuously trying but never succeeding. And "trying" in this context implies failing or weakness.
This is especially so when the journalist cites in the same report that the public figure's opponent "slams" or "blasts" the actions or statements–verbs that imply power, dominance, or strength, which are likely lifted directly from a media release. Really?! No wonder so many journalists are considered useful idiots by propagandists.
Are such habits taught in journalism classes or demanded on the job by editors? Perhaps this is some sort of carry-over from editors' directives to insert verbs like "believe," "understand," or similar to distinguish what is not fully known or knowable, or to label what are merely claims. Or maybe this is all part of some misguided or naive effort to appear objective.
Ironically, for anyone paying attention, this failure to use words wisely helps progressively to diminish the credibility of the journalist and the media.