Rather like a television drama programme which uses background music to make sure that the viewer understands whether to feel sad or happy, our newspapers, and other news media use their own form of background sound and vision to make sure we understand exactly what they want us to understand. of course what someone else wants you to understand is unlikely to be the truth,; at best it is the communicators own vision of the truth. the truth is something an individual discerns by his or hers own thought processes; truth, like experience cannot be foist upon an individual. Simply some partial truths can be offered for acceptance or rejection.
So when we hear a news item on the BBC (a particularly loud player of this kind of background music) which tells us a politician “insisted” a particular argument the use of the word “insisted” is like background music in a film, intended to direct our thoughts to a particular conclusion. “Insist” is not an alternative to “says” offered to provide the ears with a relief from hearing the same words over and over again; it is a word of colour, implying a defensive quality on the part of the politician and confuses the listener as to whether the news is being reported independently or whether we are chained to the reporter’s (or editor’s) train of thought. We are all clever enough to figure out that in a debate each side puts forward his or her own point of view; we do not need to know that one person “insisted” and another person “claimed”.
This kind of reporting treats the audience like idiots, needing to be told stuff that they can figure out for themselves and at best confuses understanding an issue by covering it with an unnecessary gloss. It also annoys one listener, at least.