Zaporozhye NPP's backup power supply resumes. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s account while giving little or no space to other relevant perspectives.

The article relies entirely on statements from the NPP’s representatives and Russian-linked institutions, with no Ukrainian comment or alternative account: - "the NPP's representatives said in a statement on Telegram" - "The line was damaged as a result of a Ukrainian military attack, which led the plant to stop receiving power from the Ferrosplavnaya-1 transmission line," the statement said. No Ukrainian official or independent expert view is included, despite the serious allegation that the damage was caused by a Ukrainian military attack.

3 suggestions

Add a Ukrainian response or note its absence, e.g.: "Ukrainian authorities have not commented on the allegation at the time of publication" or "Ukrainian officials have denied responsibility, saying..."

Include any available independent or third‑party assessments (e.g., from the IAEA or other monitoring bodies) about the cause of the damage, or explicitly state that such assessments are not yet available.

Clarify that the attribution to a Ukrainian attack is a claim by the plant’s representatives, not an established fact, e.g.: "According to the plant’s representatives, the line was damaged as a result of what they described as a Ukrainian military attack."

Selective use of sources

Relying on a narrow set of sources that share the same perspective, which can skew the narrative.

All attributions and explanations come from the plant’s representatives and Russian institutional actors: - "the NPP's representatives said in a statement on Telegram" - "These agreements were prepared with the participation of the Defense Ministry, the Foreign Ministry, the Rosatom state corporation and the IAEA," the statement said. The IAEA is mentioned as present and participating in agreements, but the article does not quote the IAEA directly or provide its independent assessment of the situation or the cause of the damage.

3 suggestions

Explicitly distinguish between what is claimed by plant/Russian sources and what is confirmed or stated by the IAEA or other independent bodies.

Include direct quotations or summaries from IAEA reports or statements, if available, especially regarding safety status and any findings on the incident.

Note the limitations of the sourcing, e.g.: "Interfax has not independently verified the cause of the damage" or "The IAEA has not publicly attributed responsibility for the damage."

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting a causal or blame-assigning statement without clear evidence or attribution that signals it is a claim rather than an established fact.

The cause of the damage is stated as fact, without explicit qualification: - "The line was damaged as a result of a Ukrainian military attack, which led the plant to stop receiving power from the Ferrosplavnaya-1 transmission line," the statement said. While the sentence ends with "the statement said," the structure may still be read as reporting the cause as established fact, and no evidence or corroboration is mentioned.

3 suggestions

Rephrase to clearly mark this as an allegation and attribute it directly, e.g.: "According to the plant’s representatives, the line was damaged in what they say was a Ukrainian military attack..."

Add a note on verification status, e.g.: "This claim has not been independently verified" or "No independent confirmation of this attribution was immediately available."

If available, reference any evidence (e.g., satellite imagery, IAEA observations) or explicitly state that such evidence has not been made public.

Omission of key information

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

The article omits several potentially important contextual elements: - No mention of the broader military context around the plant or whether there have been competing claims about who is shelling or attacking the area. - No information on whether there were any safety incidents, near misses, or previous power losses at the plant that might affect risk assessment. - No clarification of the IAEA’s own public stance on safety at the plant or on responsibility for attacks. This omission does not make the article overtly manipulative, but it limits readers’ ability to assess the significance and credibility of the claims.

3 suggestions

Add brief context about previous incidents at Zaporozhye NPP (e.g., prior power outages, shelling reports) and note if responsibility has been disputed.

Summarize relevant IAEA public statements on the plant’s safety and on attacks in the area, if available.

Clarify the broader situation, e.g.: "Both Russia and Ukraine have previously accused each other of shelling the area around the plant."