Entries in this category are assigned when a writer appears to be willfully diffusing or implying factually inaccurate or misleading information, directly or by omission.
Might also sanction contradictions — unless they appear to be a simple change of opinion — and at times lack of updates in light of evidence contradicting the reporting. Lies on public venues — such as podcasts, videos and social media accounts &mdash: may also be counted.
The distinction between willful dishonesty and an honest mistake might be to an extent arbitrary, and will be based on factors such as the article's context (with longer research articles that mostly contain correct information being less likely to be sanctioned), amount of damage incurred by subjects hurt by the inaccurate information, the writer's previous track record (including previous DeepFreeze emblems), writer's known biases and advantages from spreading the apparent lies and, especially, the presence and prominence of a retraction.
As apologies for this emblem are considered very unlikely, it might receive the “amended” modifier even without the presence of an apology, should the writer partially rectify the perceived dishonesty with subsequent coverage.
Factually inaccurate reportage might be filed as Sensationalism, if it appears to be due to sloppiness rather than willful dishonesty.
Context might bring reportage that is at least a strong candidate for the Dishonesty category to be filed as Collusion instead.