აშშ-მ 2025-ში ირანის საჰაერო თავდაცვის შესაფერხებლად კიბერიარაღები გამოიყენა - The Record. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

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

The article extensively quotes U.S. officials and describes U.S. operations in detail, but provides no direct statements, reactions, or perspectives from Iranian or Venezuelan officials, independent experts, or affected civilians. For example, it reports that the U.S. disrupted Iran’s air defenses and Venezuela’s power and radar systems, but does not include any Iranian or Venezuelan response or legal/ethical assessment.

4 suggestions

Add reactions or official statements from Iranian authorities regarding the alleged June operation and its impact on their air defense and nuclear facilities.

Include Venezuelan government or independent local sources commenting on the reported power outage, radar disruption, and radio interference in Caracas and around Caracas.

Incorporate analysis from independent international law or cybersecurity experts on the legality and implications of such cyber operations.

Explicitly note that the article is based primarily on U.S. sources and that other parties did not respond or could not be reached, if that is the case.

Selective use of sources

Relying predominantly on sources from one side or one type of institution, which can skew the narrative.

The article relies on “ამერიკელ მაღალჩინოსნებზე დაყრდნობით წერს” and “საკითხზე ინფორმირებულმა ერთ-ერთმა პირმა ანონიმურად” as its primary evidence. All described operational details and evaluations of success come from U.S. military/intelligence sources. There are no corroborating sources from neutral observers, technical experts, or the targeted states.

3 suggestions

Supplement U.S. official accounts with independent cybersecurity analysts or think-tank reports that can confirm, question, or contextualize the described operations.

Clarify how many U.S. sources were consulted and whether they were independently cross-checked.

Seek and include open-source indicators (e.g., public reports of outages in Caracas at the relevant time) to support or challenge the official narrative.

Anonymous sources

Using unnamed sources without sufficient justification or context, which can reduce verifiability and transparency.

The article cites “საკითხზე ინფორმირებულმა ერთ-ერთმა პირმა ანონიმურად” and notes that “წყაროების თხოვნით, გამოცემამ კიბერთავდასხმების შესახებ გარკვეული დეტალები არ გააშუქა.” While anonymity can be justified in national security reporting, the article does not explain why anonymity is necessary beyond a generic reference, nor how the outlet assessed the credibility of the anonymous source.

3 suggestions

Explain why the source requested anonymity (e.g., not authorized to speak publicly, risk of retaliation) and how the publication verified their position and knowledge.

Indicate whether multiple anonymous sources corroborated the same information or whether it relies on a single individual.

Where possible, attribute information to on-the-record officials or documents instead of anonymous individuals.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that are necessary for readers to fully understand the issue.

The article describes U.S. cyber operations that disrupted air defenses, power, and communications in Iran and Venezuela, but omits discussion of potential civilian impact, international law implications, or whether there were casualties or collateral damage. It also does not mention whether these actions were authorized under any specific legal framework (e.g., U.N. resolutions, domestic law) or contested internationally.

3 suggestions

Add information on whether the reported power outage in Caracas affected civilian infrastructure such as hospitals, transportation, or communications, and whether any harm was reported.

Include references to international law or expert commentary on whether such cyber operations could be considered use of force or intervention in internal affairs.

Clarify whether there has been any international reaction (e.g., from the U.N., regional organizations, or human rights groups) to these types of operations.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the status of officials or institutions to validate claims without providing independent evidence.

Statements such as “ამერიკელი მაღალჩინოსნების თქმით, ირანმა ... ვერ შეძლო” and the praise from “გენერალმა დენ კეინმა საჯაროდ შეაქო კიბერ სარდლობის როლი” present the operations as effective and sophisticated largely because high-ranking U.S. officials say so. There is little independent verification of operational success or impact beyond these authoritative claims.

3 suggestions

Balance official statements with independent technical or academic assessments of the plausibility and likely impact of such cyber operations.

Clearly label certain claims as unverified or based solely on U.S. official accounts when no external corroboration is available.

Avoid language that implicitly endorses official evaluations (e.g., “ერთ-ერთი ყველაზე დახვეწილი ქმედება”) unless supported by independent analysis; instead attribute such characterizations explicitly to the officials or outlet making them.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims as fact without sufficient evidence or corroboration.

The article reports that U.S. cyber operations caused “ვენესუელის დედაქალაქში ელექტროენერგიის გათიშვა და ქვეყნის საჰაერო თავდაცვის რადარების შეფერხება” and that cyber actions “შეფერხდა ხელის რადიოების მუშაობაც,” all attributed to U.S. officials. There is no mention of independent confirmation (e.g., public outage reports, third-party investigations) or acknowledgment that these claims come from one side and may be contested.

3 suggestions

Explicitly qualify such statements as allegations or claims by U.S. officials unless independently verified (e.g., “ამერიკელი მაღალჩინოსნების მტკიცებით…”).

Add references to independent reports or data, if available, that confirm or contradict the described outages and disruptions.

Note any lack of independent verification and inform readers that some operational details cannot be confirmed due to secrecy or limited access.