You can tell that the author is trying to manipulate rather than inform by the fact that the story is not in chronological order. The Rick Perry statement comes at the very end, and fails to mention that a reporter coined the term “freedom gas.” The ordering, plus the explicit commentary, makes it seem like Rick Perry is following some department policy established by the press releases. If you presented the story in chronological order, and include the relevant context, the tone changes completely.

It’s not a STEM thing. It’s a journalism thing. Presenting statements out of chronological order, a common journalistic technique, is inherently manipulative. People act and speak based on what happened before. When you reorder their statements you deceive the reader about the context in which statements were made or actions taken. Even in legal briefs, where lawyers are paid to argue for a side, you might see more or less emphasis on some facts, but people stick to a chronological presentation. (Because if judges feel manipulated, they’ll stop trusting you.)

I don’t think journalists are out to get anyone, it’s just that they are taught a writing style that is inherently bad and manipulative. Aside from playing with chronology, there’s the extensive reliance on hearsay, lack of citations, facts interwoven with emotional appeals, etc.