Media outlets often use words and phrases that aren’t fact-based, objective or measurable. Instead, they’re inherently vague, subjective and sensational. When reporters use these words, they’re often presenting their own opinion as if it were fact. Such language is useful in some types of writing, such as novels or poetry, but it doesn’t belong in hard news.

It’s valuable for all entrepreneurs to be able to identify such words in the news, so that they can separate fact from fiction, and data from opinion. Check out these three top picks for spin in this week’s news. You’ll see the sentences in the media that had spin, a version with the spin taken out, and a brief explanation of why these words are important to detect. (The spin words are marked in bold so they’re easier to see.)

#1. Abetted

Spun: “Stephen K. Bannon stepped down as executive chairman of Breitbart News Network on Tuesday, ending his relationship with the far-right website that he helped become widely influential and which in turn abetted his rise as a political adviser and would-be kingmaker.” (The Washington Post)

Un-spun: Bannon resigned as executive chairman of Breitbart News. He had also worked at Breitbart before becoming an adviser to Donald Trump.

Why does it matter? The word “abet” is commonly used in the phrase “aiding and abetting,” which refers to helping the commission of a crime. Using it here may suggest Bannon didn’t earn his former position honestly.

#2. Penchant for obsessiveness

Spun: “People who work with proximity to the President have sometimes questioned his erratic moods, short fuse, micro attention span and penchant for obsessiveness.” (CNN)

Un-spun: People who work in proximity to Trump have criticized his behavior.

Why does it matter? This sentence is disparaging and discredits the president, and the only data-based piece of information in it is that unnamed people have opinions about Trump’s behavior. Is that hard news?

#3. Firestorm

Spun: “The president’s chief of staff, John F. Kelly, scrambled to the Hill, while panicked aides alerted Trump to the firestorm his tweets had caused.” (The Washington Post)

Un-spun: Trump tweeted twice about a FISA surveillance renewal bill before it passed. The first tweet alleged that previous administrations used FISA to “badly surveil and abuse” the Trump campaign. The second, a couple of hours later, said the vote was “about foreign surveillance of foreign bad guys on foreign land. We need it!”

Why does it matter? Trump tweets a lot (2,546 times since inauguration day, to be exact), and a lot of people comment and react to them. But at what point does the response become a “firestorm”? This word adds drama to the reporting.