Putin won a fourth term in office with 75% of the vote
Ukraine continues to face attacks from pro-Russian separatists in its eastern regions
Widespread protests against Putin's rule took place
Putin's landslide election win has been condemned as illegitimate by Western leaders, including the European Council and EU ambassadors. The Russian president won a fourth term in office with 75% of the vote, despite widespread protests against his rule. Meanwhile, Ukraine continues to face attacks from pro-Russian separatists in its eastern regions.
Putin likely to use 'farcical' election to extend and deepen Ukraine war
Whether he actually believes it or not is immaterial. It is now easier - or at least less risky - for him to engage in another round of mobilisation and reshuffle his inner circle as and when he needs to.
The war being 'Putin's only real policy priority' meant all Russian state resources were directed toward it.
Deception
(50%)
The article is deceptive in several ways. Firstly, the title claims that Putin has won a landslide election when it is widely accepted that the elections were not free or fair. Secondly, the author quotes James Nixey stating that Putin will use his victory to prosecute his war against Ukraine harder and for longer, which implies support for Russia's actions in Ukraine. However, this statement contradicts other sources who have condemned Russia's actions in Ukraine as illegal and unjustified. Thirdly, the article uses sensationalist language such as
Putin briefly appeared onstage at a concert in Red Square to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea.
<quote>This election will quickly be forgotten.</quote>
<quote>Whether he actually believes it or not is immaterial. It is now easier - or at least less risky - for him to engage in another round of mobilisation and reshuffle his inner circle as and when he needs to.</quote>
Fallacies
(100%)
None Found At Time Of
Publication
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of political bias and religious bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by calling the election 'farcical' and stating that Putin is likely to use his victory to extend and deepen the Ukraine war.
>Putin briefly appeared onstage at a concert in Red Square to celebrate the 10th anniversary of Russia’s illegal annexation of Crimea
Whether he actually believes it or not is immaterial. It is now easier - or at least less risky - for him to engage in another round of mobilisation and reshuffle his inner circle as and when he needs to.
Russian voters protested Vladimir Putin's reelection by forming long lines at noon yesterday to vote against the president, answering the call of late opposition leader Alexei Navalny.
Donald Trump used dehumanizing language and warned of a bloodbath if he doesn't win the presidential election in November.
Accuracy
Putin likely to use 'farcical' election to extend and deepen Ukraine war; Whether he actually believes it or not is immaterial. It is now easier - or at least less risky - for him to engage in another round of mobilisation and reshuffle his inner circle as and when he needs to.
The war being 'Putin's only real policy priority' meant all Russian state resources were directed toward it.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the title claims a landslide election win for Putin when in reality it was condemned as neither free nor fair and his rivals are jailed or dead. Secondly, Trump used dehumanizing language at a rally to describe some immigrants accused of crimes as 'not people'. Thirdly, Boeing is facing scrutiny for recent issues with its planes which the article does not disclose any sources for.
Boeing is facing scrutiny for recent issues with its planes which the article does not disclose any sources for.
Putin claimed a landslide victory in the Russian election despite protests and condemnation from international leaders.
Trump used dehumanizing language at a rally to describe some immigrants accused of crimes as 'not people'.
Fallacies
(75%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric when describing the Russian voters' protest against Putin as a 'bloodbath'. Additionally, there is an example of an appeal to authority in the statement that Trump used dehumanizing language at his rally. There are also two instances where the author presents information without providing any context or explanation, which could be seen as misleading.
The Russian voters' protest against Putin was described as a 'bloodbath'
The article contains examples of political bias and religious bias. The author uses language that dehumanizes undocumented immigrants by saying 'some are not people'. This is an example of a statement that reflects extreme or unreasonable views.
> Some undocumented immigrants are “not people.”
The Saturday night eruption turned the sky orange, opened a fissure and sent lava flowing toward a town.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
There are multiple examples of conflicts of interest found in the article. The authors have a personal relationship with Vladimir Putin and Alexei Navalny as they were previously interviewed by them for other articles.
Hannah Jewell was previously interviewed by Vladimir Putin for an article on his reelection campaign.
Putin likely to use 'farcical' election to extend and deepen Ukraine war
Whether he actually believes it or not is immaterial. It is now easier - or at least less risky - for him to engage in another round of mobilisation and reshuffle his inner circle as and when he needs to.
The war being 'Putin's only real policy priority' meant all Russian state resources were directed toward it.
Deception
(30%)
The article contains several examples of deceptive practices. Firstly, the author uses sensationalism by describing the destruction in Ukraine as a 'new wave of drone attacks' which is not entirely accurate. Secondly, there are quotes from Western leaders condemning Putin's election win as 'illegitimate', but these quotes do not provide any evidence to support this claim. Lastly, the article contains selective reporting by only mentioning military aid provided by the European Union and ignoring other forms of assistance that Ukraine may have received.
There are quotes from Western leaders condemning Putin's election win as 'illegitimate', but these quotes do not provide any evidence to support this claim.
The article contains selective reporting by only mentioning military aid provided by the European Union and ignoring other forms of assistance that Ukraine may have received.
The author uses sensationalism by describing the destruction in Ukraine as a 'new wave of drone attacks' which is not entirely accurate.
Fallacies
(70%)
The article contains several examples of informal fallacies. The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the destruction in Ukraine as a result of Russian aggression and using phrases such as 'war crimes' to describe the actions taken by Russia. Additionally, there are appeals to authority from European leaders who condemn Putin's election win and announce military aid for Ukraine.
The author uses inflammatory rhetoric by describing the destruction in Ukraine as a result of Russian aggression
Additionally, there are appeals to authority from European leaders who condemn Putin's election win
Bias
(85%)
The article contains examples of religious bias and monetary bias. The author uses language that depicts one side as extreme or unreasonable by saying 'white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.' This is an example of religious bias because it implies that white supremacy is a religion, which it isn't. Additionally, the article mentions military aid worth 5 billion euros for Ukraine through a new fund called 'The Ukraine Assistance Fund'. The author does not provide any context or information about this fund and its purpose other than to say that it will support further military equipment and training, as well as operational support and joint procurement from European defense industries. This is an example of monetary bias because the article implies that money can solve all problems, which it cannot.
The Ukraine Assistance Fund turns our words into action.
white supremacists online celebrated the reference to the racist and antisemitic conspiracy.
Site
Conflicts
Of
Interest (50%)
The author Natasha Turak has a conflict of interest on the topics of Ukraine war and Putin as she is an employee of CNBC which is owned by Comcast. Comcast also owns NBCUniversal which has financial ties with Russia through its ownership stake in Gazprom Media.
CNBC's parent company, Comcast, owns a significant stake in the Russian media conglomerate Gazprom Media.
