In the aftermath of US strikes on Iran, facts are fragile and truth is urgent

So now what?

That’s the biggest question. What happens now following President Donald Trump's decision to have the U.S. military attack three nuclear facilities in Iran over the weekend?

The indications were Monday night that the war between Iran and Israel might be over. But those are, for now, just words. And it isn’t clear what is happening or what will happen next.

As far as actions, we’ve already seen a little of the “now what?” as, in response to the U.S.’s actions on Saturday, Iran launched a missile attack Monday on an American base in Qatar, the largest American military installation in the Middle East.

The New York Times reported, “Even as it attacked, there were signs that Iran was looking for an off-ramp from a confrontation with the United States. Three Iranian officials said their government had given advance notice that the missile strike was coming, to minimize potential casualties, and President Trump responded with an olive branch online.”

In a post on his Truth Social, Trump said, “I want to thank Iran for giving us early notice, which made it possible for no lives to be lost, and nobody to be injured. Perhaps Iran can now proceed to Peace and Harmony in the Region, and I will enthusiastically encourage Israel to do the same.”

Then came big news, at first according to the president. Trump posted on social media Monday evening that Israel and Iran had agreed to a ceasefire, ending what he called a “12 day war.” Shortly after Trump’s post, CNN reported that Iran had not received a ceasefire proposal, and other news organizations reported at first that neither Israeli nor Iranian officials had confirmed the news.

In his earlier post, Trump added that 13 of the 14 missiles launched were knocked down by the U.S, with the other “set free” because it was headed in a “nonthreatening direction.” He added that now that Iran has “gotten it all of their system,” everyone can move on with “no further HATE.”

But is that it? Is it truly over? And what does it all mean for Trump?

As The Washington Post’s Amber Phillips smartly put it in her “5-Minute Fix” newsletter, “It’s a particularly risky bet for him because no one knows what may happen next, and if this escalates into a broader conflict that involves the United States, there is evidence it could become a political liability for Trump — even among his loyal supporters.”

What happens next has become a particularly interesting part of the conversation on two fronts.

For starters, what could happen next? Smart media coverage has included how Iran could still retaliate in other ways if the conflict continues. Iran could target the flow of oil. As The Associated Press’ Stan Choe, Elaine Kurtenbach and Bernard Condon noted, “The fear throughout the Israel-Iran war has been that it could squeeze the world’s supply of oil, which would pump up prices for it, gasoline and other products refined from crude. Iran is a major producer of crude, and it could also try to block the Strait of Hormuz off its coast, through which 20% of the world’s daily oil needs passes on ships.”

On Monday, however, oil prices tumbled and stocks rose, putting fears of soaring oil and gas prices to rest for the moment.

But there have also been warnings about acts of terrorism and cyberattacks — something else the world is watching closely following the U.S.’s involvement in the war between Israel and Iran.

Meanwhile, another important area to watch is how the media sources the information it passes along to its audiences. Right after the attacks Saturday night, and in an effort to get the news out quickly, much of the media was left to simply report what was being said by Trump and the U.S. government. Proper attribution was critical.

Take, for example, how NPR’s Joe Hernandez framed it: “The strikes were intended to prevent Iran from developing a nuclear weapon, according to U.S. officials. President Trump said in a Truth Social post Saturday evening that the American assault was ‘very successful.’”

That is the right way to do it — to acknowledge that this is what  “U.S. officials” and Trump himself were saying as to what the U.S. did, why they did it, and how the operation turned out. However, it does become important for audiences to understand that this is the government’s version of events, which may or may not be completely or even partially true.

That’s why it’s also key for news organizations to not blindly accept what the government is saying, and to continue their own independent reporting. This is a time when major news organizations must put their deep resources to work to accurately report what is happening. That’s why, when Trump initially posted on Truth Social on Monday that a ceasefire between Iran and Israel had been reached, news outlets quickly noted at that time that the news had not been confirmed by Israel or Iran.

Here's an example of this kind of responsible reporting. I bolded the key passage in this story written by The New York Times’ David E. Sanger wrote, “A day after President Trump declared that Iran’s nuclear program had been ‘completely and totally obliterated’ by American bunker-busting bombs and a barrage of missiles, the actual state of the program seemed far more murky, with senior officials conceding they did not know the fate of Iran’s stockpile of near-bomb-grade uranium.”

Here’s more good work. The headline on a story for Politico by James M. Acton, who holds the Jessica T. Mathews Chair and is co-director of the Nuclear Policy Program at the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace: “JD Vance Said the Iran Strikes Set Their Nuclear Program Back ‘Substantially.’ He’s Wrong.”

Acton writes, “Speaking on Sunday morning, Vice President JD Vance stated that the Saturday U.S. air strikes on Iran had ‘set their nuclear program back substantially.’ His comments came soon after President Donald Trump said that the operation had ‘completely obliterated’ key nuclear facilities in the country. Satellite images of bombed buildings and cratered mountainsides certainly give credence to these claims. But these statements from Vance and Trump are far too confident. In reality, Iran can likely reconstitute its program rapidly — perhaps in a year or so. What’s more, after the U.S. strikes, there is also now a real danger that Tehran will make the decision to go further than enriching and amassing uranium and actually build a bomb.”

Acton, an expert in this field, puts into context information that was first given out by two of the highest government officials: the president and the vice president.

This is the type of coverage that news organizations need to lean into.

Notable coverage from the events in the Middle East

• Frank Bruni, a contributing opinion writer for The New York Times, with “Trump Goes to War. And These Are His Advisers?” Bruni writes, “When an American president makes an especially weighty decision, there’s some small comfort in knowing that seasoned, steady aides were in the mix, complementing the commander in chief’s instincts with their expertise. President Trump dropped 15-ton bombs on uranium enrichment sites in Iran with Tulsi Gabbard as his director of national intelligence and Pete Hegseth as his defense secretary. I, for one, am not comforted.”
• Also in The New York Times, Mark Landler with “Iran’s Nuclear Dreams May Survive Even a Devastating American Blow.”
• From The Wall Street Journal’s “What’s News?” podcast: “Trump Muses About Regime Change in Iran. Could It Happen?”
• NBC’s “Here’s the Scoop” podcast features NBC News chief foreign correspondent Richard Engel joining host Yasmin Vossoughian from Tel Aviv, as well as NBC chief White House correspondent Peter Alexander reporting on the conversations inside the West Wing.
• I’ve consistently written that CNN is at its best when there is actual news going on in the world. That is the case now. CNN’s coverage — such as Anderson Cooper, Clarissa Ward and Jeremy Diamond having to seek shelter while reporting from Tel Aviv — has been compelling and important.

A MESSAGE FROM POYNTER

New reporter? Get tools and training to succeed

Master the fundamentals with Building Blocks: Critical Skills for New Reporters. Learn essential reporting techniques, storytelling methods, and newsroom navigation skills through live virtual sessions led by seasoned journalists. Get personalized mentorship, develop compelling story ideas, and build ethical interviewing skills while connecting with a supportive journalism community. Registration deadline: June 30.

Register today.

Host with the most

Media Matters’ Matt Gertz's latest piece: “Fox let chief Trump propagandist Hannity lead special coverage of the US strikes on Iran.”

Gertz notes that Sean Hannity, who normally hosts a prime-time show on weeknights, anchored two hours of special coverage on Fox News after Trump’s Saturday night announcement that the U.S. military had struck three Iranian nuclear strikes. Before that — which is after news broke that the U.S. attacked the sites and an hour before Trump addressed the nation — Bret Baier anchored Fox News’ coverage.

Having Baier, probably the network’s top anchor, come into work on a weekend is somewhat expected for such a big story. But to have Hannity come in on a day off?

Gertz wrote, “Fox executives, knowing that Trump intended to speak at the White House at 10 p.m., made the conscious decision to ensure that for the hour before and after (Trump’s) remarks, the network’s coverage would be guided by Hannity, not its ‘news side’ team.”

Gertz continued, “Hannity spent the last decade shattering every possible ethical norm on Trump’s behalf: He has appeared in and even scripted his campaign ads, spoken at a campaign rally, and advised presidential decisions on staffing, communications, and policy — all while regularly interviewing Trump himself on his Fox show. He has also advocated for a U.S. military strike on Iranian nuclear sites for more than a decade.  Hannity predictably used the opportunity on Saturday to shower Trump with praise and host a parade of shills who touted the president’s decision to bomb Iran.”

On air, Hannity said, “This is a huge development tonight, and I believe the world is a much safer place.”

Hannity then hosted a round of guests — Fox weekend host Mark Levin, Arkansas Republican Sen. Tom Cotton, Oklahoma Republican Sen. Markwayne Mullin and Fox contributor Katie Pavlich — who all strongly supported Trump’s decision.

Gertz wrote, “If Trump tuned in to his favorite network on Saturday night, he heard a host who functions as his chief propagandist showering him with praise for following through. That’s apparently exactly what the Fox executives wanted. And that bodes ill for how the network will handle a war against Iran based on obvious lies and featuring rapidly shifting aims.”

Speaking of Media Matters

Media Matters, called a liberal advocacy organization by The New York Times, is suing the Federal Trade Commission to block an investigation into the group. In a statement, Media Matters said, “The investigation is the latest effort by Elon Musk and his allies in the Trump administration to retaliate against Media Matters for its reporting on X, the social media site Musk controls, and it’s another example of the Trump administration weaponizing government authorities to target political opponents. The suit alleges that the FTC has violated Media Matters’ First Amendment rights by retaliating against the organization for its reporting on Elon Musk and X.”

The New York Times’ Kate Conger and Kenneth P. Vogel wrote, “The F.T.C. started investigating Media Matters last month over whether the organization had illegally colluded with other advertising advocacy groups to pinch off revenue from X, Mr. Musk’s social media company, and other right-leaning sites. Media Matters reported in 2023 that ads on X appeared alongside antisemitic content.”

In a statement, Angelo Carusone, the chairman and president of Media Matters, said, “The Trump administration has demonstrated that it will not hesitate to abuse the powers of the federal government to undermine the First Amendment and stifle dissent. This highly politicized FTC investigation is part of that playbook. This is a significant free speech issue, and Media Matters will not back down from this fight. If the Trump administration is allowed to use this unlawful investigation to punish legitimate reporting on behalf of a political ally, then there is nothing to stop it from targeting anyone who stands up and exercises their rights.”

Fact-checkers, assemble!

GlobalFact 12, the world’s largest annual gathering for fact-checkers, will be held this week in Rio de Janeiro. More than 350 fact-checkers, policymakers, academics and platform representatives, including from TikTok, are gathering Wednesday through Friday to discuss one of the biggest problems facing the world today: misinformation.

Ahead of the conference, in a story published by Poynter, Enock Nyariki, the communications manager of the International Fact-Checking Network at Poynter, spoke with IFCN director Angie Drobnic Holan to preview the event.

Among the topics to be covered in Rio is the decision by Meta to end its U.S. fact-checking program, and the rising harassment of newsrooms.

Holan told Nyariki, “We have several panels devoted to these topics, though I will warn you that there are no magic solutions to persistent problems like harassment. Rather, we see recurring strategies to implement and helpful processes to manage. On Meta’s moves, I think we will have a lot of discussion on what Meta has done in the United States and what they might do next globally. I regret to report that though IFCN invited Meta to attend the conference, they declined. So we’ll have to have those discussions in Rio without them.”

Meanwhile, Holan said “one of the most intriguing areas of the conference” could be the use of AI in journalism. Holan said, “I think generative artificial intelligence is going to reshape how people access information and their relationships with online content. So fact-checkers and all journalists need to be thinking hard about what we want our relationships with both the audience and AI companies to look like.”

Be sure to check out Poynter’s website throughout the week for continuing coverage of GlobalFact 12.

Basketball talk

Cue up that cool John Tesh “Roundball Rock” theme that NBC used to (and will once again) use for its coverage of the NBA. OK, now in the mood?

The Athletic’s Richard Deitsch broke the news that Maria Taylor will be the lead studio host for NBC Sports’ NBA and WNBA coverage on NBC and Peacock. Deitsch reports that Taylor will host NBA studio shows on Sunday and Tuesday nights next season, as well as select WNBA games starting in 2026.

Taylor has plenty of NBA experience on her resume. While at ESPN, she hosted ABC/ESPN’s NBA Finals coverage, as well as the “NBA Countdown” and women's college basketball studio shows. She left ESPN in 2021 to join NBC, where he has been host of “Football Night in America” — the pregame show for “Sunday Night Football.”

Meanwhile, the NBA Finals ended Sunday night with Oklahoma City defeating Indiana in Game 7 to win its first NBA championship since moving from Seattle in 2008. Unfortunately, Sunday’s Game 7 had a dark cloud over it after Indiana star Tyrese Haliburton tore his Achilles tendon just seven minutes into the game.

The culmination of OKC’s incredible season and the injury to Haliburton will stand out as the enduring memories of the 2025 NBA Finals, but unfortunately, so will ABC/ESPN’s coverage. The actual game coverage with play-by-play announcer Mike Breen and analysts Doris Burke and Richard Jefferson was fine, but the pregame and halftime shows are being slammed by media critics and basketball fans.

The overall complaint: Analysts Stephen A. Smith and Kendrick Perkins made the show all about themselves instead of the game, players and teams. It came to a head during the Game 7 pregame show when Smith and Perkins started arguing, with Smith getting particularly loud. Awful Announcing’s Matt Yoder chronicled some of the reaction in “Viewers blast ‘unwatchable’ ESPN NBA Finals Game 7 pregame show.”

Meanwhile, it wasn’t all bad for ESPN. Yoder also wrote, “Scott Van Pelt showed the best of ESPN in NBA Finals Game 7 postgame show.”

Oh, one more quick thought. Just a moment ago, I called the actual game coverage “fine” and I stand by that. It’s just fine, not sensational. But I do like the trio of Breen, Burke and Jefferson. This was only their first season together, so I would give him at least one more season to develop a little more chemistry. The problem is, they are being compared to the long-standing team of Breen, Jeff Van Gundy and Mark Jackson, which was an elite broadcast team until ESPN decided to blow it up two summers ago by inexplicably parting ways with Van Gundy and Jackson.

But Breen, Burke and Jefferson deserve another year.

Media tidbits

• Must-read/listen/watch of the day: The New York Times’ David Marchese with “The Interview. Andrew Schulz, ‘Podcast Bro,’ Might Be America’s Foremost Political Journalist.” (You can also watch the podcast here.)
• Catching up on this from last week regarding the case of Trump going after the Pulitzer Prize Board. Politico’s Hailey Fuchs with “A judge sided with Trump. Behind the scenes, he was lobbying for a nomination.”
• The Tampa Bay Times’ Gabrielle Calise with “How St. Petersburg’s new lesbian newspaper is preserving queer Florida history.”
• Front Office Sports’ Ryan Glasspiegel is reporting that Dan Woike, one of the top NBA reporters in the business, is going from covering the Los Angeles Lakers for the Los Angeles Times to covering the Lakers for The Athletic. Glasspiegel wrote, “Woike will replace Lakers reporter Jovan Buha, who announced Friday that it was his final day at The Athletic after seven years. Buha said in his post that he will continue covering the Lakers via YouTube and his podcast.”

Hot type

• If you’re a baseball fan, you’ll really learn a lot from this piece. And if you’re not a baseball fan, you’ll still learn something. It’s The Athletic’s Rustin Dodd with “Want to handle criticism better? A former MLB umpire shares advice — and untold stories.” This story is from Peak, The Athletic’s desk covering leadership, personal development and success through the lens of sports.
• All this week, The New York Times is unveiling its “100 Best Movies of the 21st Century” as selected by more than 500 influential directors, actors and other notable names in Hollywood. Monday’s first installment lists movies 100 to 81.

More resources for journalists

• Journalism leaders of color: Poynter’s prestigious Diversity Leadership Academy has helped over 200 journalists of color advance their careers. Apply today.
• Early-career editors: Get tools to line-edit under pressure, learn to coach inexperienced reporters remotely and guide reporters to develop quick enterprise stories that elevate their beat coverage. Register now.
• Learn how to uncover public records and hard-to-find facts in The 5 Ws of Research, an on-demand course taught by veteran journalist Caryn Baird — free for a limited time.
• New reporters: Get essential reporting techniques, effective storytelling methods, and newsroom navigation skills. Registration deadline less than a week away: Register now.

Have feedback or a tip? Email Poynter senior media writer Tom Jones at [email protected].

The Poynter Report is your daily dive into the world of media, packed with the latest news and insights. Get it delivered to your inbox Monday through Friday by signing up here. And don’t forget to tune into our biweekly podcast for even more.