Russia launches massive aerial attacks on Ukraine. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims as facts without indicating they are based on one side’s statements or without independent verification.

The article states: "Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks on Ukraine last night, killing three people." and "Russia fired more than 650 drones and over 30 missiles across at least 13 regions." These figures and characterizations appear to come from President Zelenskyy’s statement, but the first sentence is written as an established fact rather than clearly attributing it to Ukrainian sources or independent confirmation.

3 suggestions

Attribute key factual claims explicitly: e.g., "According to Ukrainian officials, Russia launched one of its largest aerial attacks on Ukraine last night, which they say killed three people."

Clarify the source of numbers: e.g., "In a statement on social media, Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy said that Russia fired more than 650 drones and over 30 missiles across at least 13 regions." (this is already partly done, but the opening sentence could mirror this attribution).

Add a note on verification if applicable: e.g., "These figures could not be independently verified" or "Independent verification of these numbers is still ongoing."

Selective use of sources

Relying on a single side’s official statements without including other relevant perspectives or indicating attempts to obtain them.

The only source cited is Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. There is no mention of Russian official statements, independent observers, or third-party verification. This can create a perception that only one side’s narrative is being presented, even if the reporting is otherwise factual and restrained.

3 suggestions

Include whether Russian authorities were contacted or what they said: e.g., "Russian officials have not commented on the strikes" or "Russia’s Defence Ministry did not immediately respond to a request for comment."

If Russian statements exist, summarize them neutrally: e.g., "Russia has previously said its strikes target military and energy infrastructure and denies deliberately targeting civilians."

Note any independent or third-party confirmation: e.g., "Local authorities and emergency services in the affected regions reported power outages and damage to energy facilities."

Omission of key information

Leaving out contextual details that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article notes that the attacks "primarily targeted Ukraine’s energy system and civilian infrastructure" and "disrupt[ed] what he described as the entire infrastructure of daily life" but does not provide any concrete examples (e.g., specific cities, types of facilities hit, scale of outages) or broader context (e.g., whether this fits into a pattern of recent attacks).

3 suggestions

Add specific, verifiable examples: e.g., "Local authorities reported damage to power substations in [region/city] and temporary blackouts affecting approximately [number] residents."

Provide brief context: e.g., "The strikes are part of a series of attacks on Ukraine’s energy infrastructure that have intensified in recent weeks."

Clarify the scope of impact: e.g., "While Zelenskyy described the attacks as disrupting the 'entire infrastructure of daily life', officials have so far reported outages in [number] regions."

Appeal to emotion (mild, via unqualified phrasing)

Using broad, dramatic formulations that can evoke strong emotional reactions without precise quantification.

The phrase "disrupting what he described as the entire infrastructure of daily life" is a quotation from Zelenskyy, but the article does not balance this sweeping characterization with more precise, concrete information. Without context, such a broad statement can function as an emotional amplifier rather than a strictly informative description.

3 suggestions

Keep the quote but immediately contextualize it: e.g., "...disrupting what he described as the entire infrastructure of daily life, referring to widespread power cuts and interruptions to water and heating services in several regions."

Clarify that this is a characterization, not a measured assessment: e.g., "Zelenskyy characterized the impact as affecting 'the entire infrastructure of daily life', though officials have so far detailed outages in [number] regions."

Where possible, replace or supplement broad phrases with data: e.g., "Officials reported that [X]% of households in [region] temporarily lost power."

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting information predominantly from one side without proportionate representation of other relevant perspectives.

The article presents only the Ukrainian leadership’s account of the attack and its impact. There is no Russian perspective, no mention of any Russian justification or denial, and no independent or third-party assessment. While this may reflect the information available at the time, it still results in a one-sided narrative.

3 suggestions

Explicitly acknowledge the one-sided sourcing: e.g., "The details of the attack currently come solely from Ukrainian officials; independent verification is ongoing."

Include any available Russian or third-party statements, even if brief, and present them neutrally.

If no other perspectives are available, state that: e.g., "There were no immediate comments from Russian officials, and independent verification of the scale of the attack is not yet available."