Google AI Hits the Nail on the Head

By Joseph L. Petrelli

On Dec. 13, 2025, I searched the term “Hit Piece” in Google. Google AI returned the following:

A “hit piece” is a deliberately negative article, report, or video designed to damage someone’s reputation by presenting biased, exaggerated, or false information as factual, often disguised as objective journalism or commentary, aiming to sway public opinion against the subject. It implies an agenda to discredit, criticize, or “take down” a person or entity, rather than to genuinely inform, focusing on negatives with a planned intent to harm, not discover truth. 

Key Characteristics of a Hit Piece:
Intent: To discredit, malign, or destroy reputation, not to seek objective truth.
Content: Presents biased, skewed, or fabricated information, often using “stolen” or misleading
footage/facts.
Tone: Often reads like a screed or attack, driven by anger or a rigid agenda.
Fairness: Lacks journalistic ethics like objectivity and balance; rarely acknowledges any positives about
the subject.

How It Differs From Legitimate Journalism:
Investigative Journalism: Seeks answers and aims to uncover facts.
Hit Piece: Believes it already has the answers and seeks to confirm a negative narrative. 

In essence, a hit piece is a form of media attack that masquerades as legitimate reporting but is driven by a malicious agenda to harm someone’s public image. 

Here are some of my thoughts on why an article or even an academic study’s intent could be characterized as a
“hit piece:”
Despite Demotech’s efforts to cooperate with the articles and studies, historical information and contextual explanations were not sought or were excluded.
Statistics are manipulated to present them in a misleading manner.
Raw numbers and comprehensive presentations of data are eschewed and instead the authors divide decimals to arrive at disingenuous conclusions.
Counterfactual ratings were contrived to support a biased narrative, when actual data, including nearly 200 dual-rated carriers, was available and offered.
Facts about a dual-rated carrier assigned a rating at the A level by Demotech and AM Best were intentionally and conveniently ignored.
Definitions of “Demotech insurers” compared to “other insurers” created for the study were illogical, such that dual-rated carriers could be characterized as “low quality” and “high quality” at the same time.
The comparison of a limited set of data between “Demotech insurers” and “other insurers,” exposed obvious bias. For one example, the study identifies the conservative (and therefore “less-risky”) nature of Demotech insurers’ assets compared to other insurers but then perplexingly framed this as a negative characteristic. In addition, the authors demonstrate a fundamental lack of understanding — or at best have inserted their own opinions—about risk-based-capital, reinsurance, size, and diversification.
The role of state guaranty funds is ignored.

To the informed observer, the misinformation, misleading data, and biased perspective is apparent in articles and studies. Facts matter, and Demotech will continue to educate others about the truth: Demotech has a strong track record; Demotech’s impairment rates are comparable (and often superior) to comparable rating impairment rates reported by other rating agencies; and Demotech will continue to be transparent, independent and objective in providing ratings to financially stable insurers.