The usual example is an hypothetical Wikipedia page starting with the sentence "Adolph Hitler was a soldier, a painter and a statesman". It's not wrong, but I wouldn't say it's a good summary either.
All I can think of is that using this data to judge biases could be defeated by a simple search-and-replace if anyone wanted to. But I doubt publishers cate enough about obscure papers calling them conservative to change their language. (If they do stop calling all foreigners “illegal aliens”, that’s would actually be quite the feat for a lowly department of semantics)
The issue here is a simple one, that in communication, language cannot be divorced from context. Laughing at a birthday party means you're having fun. Laughing at a funeral means you're distressed. Laughing itself has no meaning, and words themselves have no meaning. You don't 'pick up' signals, you interpret something as a signal within a frame of reference.
This methodology is right in every case where it is trivial, and thus unnecessary, it is likely wrong in every case where it matters. And that is an actively bad combination.