We do not republish articles from Evening Standard. Our findings are below, each quoting the words it is about. Read the full article on the outlet's own site.
The Evening Standard reports a US indictment of three men over alleged attacks on Jewish sites in London and the RAF Fairford incident, and in the body it mostly keeps the charges attributed to the US Justice Department. Its headline does not: it states 'Iran-backed' as the outlet's own fact and puts 'terror masterminds plotted multiple attacks' in quotation marks, though nobody in the article says those words. Iran's response gets one closing clause against long passages from US officials and court papers.
The headline calls the three men 'Iran-backed' in the Standard's own voice, outside the quotation marks. It then puts 'terror masterminds plotted multiple attacks' in quotation marks as if someone said it, and opens with 'Revealed: How', which presents the plotting as established.
The impression it gives
A reader takes it as established that Iran backed these men and that a named source called them terror masterminds who plotted multiple attacks.
The context
The body attributes every element to a US indictment. The DOJ charged the men over 'alleged activities in support of' the IRGC and Kataib Hezbollah. They are only 'accused of being the masterminds' of the Fairford incident. Iran has denied any involvement in that incident. No sentence in the article contains the quoted phrase. Nothing has been proved in court, and one defendant has pleaded not guilty.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“in connection with their alleged activities in support of two US-designated foreign terrorist organisations”
Elsewhere in the article“they are accused of being the masterminds behind the failed terror strike”
Elsewhere in the article“with which Iran has denied any involvement”
Elsewhere in the article“he pleaded not guilty to charges”
The Standard gives Iran's position as one trailing clause in the last sentence, and only about the Fairford incident.
The impression it gives
A reader comes away with the US case told at length and with almost no sense of how Iran or the accused answer the wider allegations.
The context
The article quotes the indictment across many paragraphs and gives FBI director Kash Patel a full statement that the indictment 'shows the determination of Iran to commit terrorist attacks'. Iran's denial appears once, at the very end, and the article reports no response from Iran on the London attacks.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“shows the determination of Iran to commit terrorist attacks in Europe and the US”