We do not republish articles from Daily Mail. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Daily Mail reports an IRGC video of an underground missile complex alongside the G7 diplomacy on ending the US-Iran war, and quotes US, European, Qatari and Iranian voices at length. In its own voice it twice calls the arsenal 'terrifying'. Near the top it says the war 'erupted', leaving the US-Israeli strikes that started it to a sentence much further down.
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“terrifying array of rockets and weaponry”
Why this matters
The headline calls the arsenal 'terrifying' in the Daily Mail's own voice, not as anyone's assessment.
The impression it gives
A reader takes the video as an objectively frightening threat before learning what it shows.
The context
The body and other coverage describe a missile complex displayed by the IRGC. Al-Monitor reports the same event without any such verdict.
The opening sentence repeats 'terrifying' as the outlet's description of what the video 'revealed', so the verdict frames the whole report.
The impression it gives
A reader treats the emotional reaction as part of the fact of the story.
The context
The article's own description is of rows of missiles, launchers and vehicles in a complex toured by two commanders. Nothing in it supports an outlet verdict of terror beyond the display itself.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“row upon row of missiles, alongside launchers and military vehicles”
“which erupted on February 28 with the killing of supreme leader Ali Khamenei”
Why this matters
The Daily Mail says the war 'erupted' with 'the killing' of Khamenei and names no one who carried it out.
The impression it gives
A reader at this point learns a killing started the war but not who killed him, and may take the war as something that broke out on its own.
The context
The article itself says later that the war began with US-Israeli strikes that killed Khamenei. The outlet's own earlier report also names US-Israeli attacks.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“began with US-Israeli strikes that killed Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei”
“throughout the war, which erupted in February of this year”
Why this matters
This first mention of the war's start uses 'erupted' and gives no actor at all.
The impression it gives
A reader of the opening paragraphs, set beside Iran's missile display, has no sign of which side began the war.
The context
The article only names the US-Israeli strikes as the start of the war in S28, deep in the piece.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“the war, which began with US-Israeli strikes”
What it gets right
“the war, which began with US-Israeli strikes that killed Iran's supreme leader Ayatollah Ali Khamenei in late February”
It names the actors and uses 'killed' for the killing of Iran's supreme leader.
“announced what it called an 'economic asphyxiation' campaign aimed at strangling Iran's economy, already battered by years of sanctions”
It attributes the US label to Washington and states plainly the damage sanctions have done to Iran's economy.
“'The conflict with Iran will not be resolved through military means, nor by intensifying sanctions,' Foreign Minister Abbas Araghchi told Iran's IRNA news agency.”
It gives Iran's foreign minister his own words on Iran's position rather than only summarising US and European views.