in the example you present, all that might be required to to remove the emotional adjectives inserted with the aim of causing distrust and alarm.
imo its an excellent example you pose because it deals with the semantics of 'truth' or facts.
such examination should require the party proposing such language to prove the claim.
a lie can easily be shown to be a lie, regardless of foreknowledge, whereas an alarmist slur, such as "dangerous", requires the danger to be proven.
voters are a wide range of people, some of whom have little ability to discern truth from fact. we as a species have always been susceptible to believe alarmist language, hence the rise of religions and superstitions. party ads need to be compelled to explain their policies and other speeches in simple terms that are comprehensible to the least literate and poorly informed. and this must be factual as defined by a unbiased authority imo.
lies only degrade our politics to populism and open the door to fake news, deepfake crap and mud-slinging.
