As the Iran war unfolds, here’s how to separate fact from spin
From ‘preemptive’ strikes to claims of thousands of targets hit, pay attention to how the language shapes the story
It should go without saying that any statement that comes from either side in the middle of a war aims to manipulate our understanding of the facts on the ground. The U.S.-Israeli strikes on Iran are no exception.
Iranian leaders claim that they still have a deadly capacity for counterattack. That might or might not be the case.
We need to be just as careful with statements from America’s leaders.
Every reader and viewer needs to bear in mind that facts are slippery when bombs, drones and missiles are flying. Below are some red flags to keep in mind as American officials selectively frame reality.
Related Knowledge Center: Inside the newsroom
As newsrooms struggle with rickety business models and precarious finances — as well as new technologies — they are deploying an array of editorial responses.
The Times and its critics | Washington Post mortem
Related Knowledge Center: Information integrity
In an increasingly fractured media landscape, truth has been a casualty in the public discussion. Coverage has been warped by the business needs of struggling news organizations, and a significant segment of the public relies on bad-faith outlets that are little more than propagandists. While fact-checking has become routine, some organizations are exploring other ways to combat the trends. And misinformation spewed by AI-driven chatbots has become more of a feature than simply a bug.
Fact-checking and its detractors