Perhaps unintended but readers of the written word do inject a tone, be it derisive, mocking, emphatic or droning. It’s similar to the way people repeat  words they’ve heard. The written word and the oral word usually take on the tone of the person inferring those words. And inferring is often way different than the originator intended.

Example: On her first day on TV’s morning panel, The View, Whoopi Goldberg entered the discussion about Miachael Vick, the admitted dog fight proponent. She said she felt Vick’s activity reflected the environment in which he was raised. Her comment generated instant reaction and was couched in interpretive language. "Whoopi defends Vick" was the immediate word. There was no consideration of the fact that she was offering an insight, not a defense.

Another example: Hillary Clinton expresses a different view than Barak Obama. Headlines read "Hillary attacks Obama."

Third example: Celebrities, including political figures, are often said to "accuse" others or "deny" actions attributed to them. Both words sound combative. Whatever happened to calling statements a disagreement? It certainly sounds more civil. Or – maybe that’s the problem. We’ve lost the art of polite language. We respond better to accusations and denials.

When words cannot be invoked because a debate or talk show panel host allots time to another speaker, "tone" takes the form of a snicker or sneer, derisively aimed at one’s opponent.

Sometimes the "tone" is set by talking over another speaker, not simply interrupting but being scornful or sarcastic. When forced to be silent, a huge smile manages to mock an opponent.

It’s not always what one says but how one says it that conveys meaning. Just like we read the words in an e-mail or listen to a relayed conversation, we infer messages through our own mental filters. We  apply  preconceived notions without realizing it. That’s why two people can read the same book and draw totally different conclusions.

It’s also why public figures need publicists.