Moment police arrest two Iranian spies who were hired over social media to attack journalists in the UK critical of the regime and Israel-supporting lawyer
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 gives a detailed, well-sourced account of the trial, naming the IRGC handlers, the targets and the separate verdicts for each defendant. Its headline and opening line say both convicted men were hired to attack, although the body shows only Sepahvand was convicted of preparing serious violence. It also leans on migration status in its own voice, including for a man the jury acquitted.
Headline goes beyond the article
Minor
“two Iranian spies who were hired over social media to attack journalists”
Why this matters
The words "two Iranian spies who were hired ... to attack journalists" put both convicted men under the same charge of being hired to attack.
The impression it gives
Both men were convicted as hired attackers.
The context
The body says both were convicted of assisting a foreign intelligence service, and only Sepahvand was also convicted of preparing serious violence. The BBC describes the convictions as surveillance. The prosecution did say the operation's objective was violence, so the gap is in precision, not invention.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Sepahvand was also found guilty of preparing to commit serious violence”
Elsewhere in the article“found guilty of assisting a foreign intelligence service”
“hired to track down and attack a lawyer and journalists”
Why this matters
The opening line repeats that both men were hired to "attack", before the reader reaches the separate verdicts.
The impression it gives
The associate, Manesh, was also found to have been hired for violence.
The context
Only Sepahvand was hired as the would-be attacker and convicted of preparing violence. Manesh was convicted of assisting a foreign intelligence service.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“was hired to act as a hitman”
Elsewhere in the article“Sepahvand was also found guilty of preparing to commit serious violence”
Uses a loaded word
Minor
“the first to involve Iranian asylum seekers”
Why this matters
The Mail labels the convicted men "asylum seekers" in its own voice.
The impression it gives
The defendants were people with pending asylum claims.
The context
The article itself says Sepahvand was granted asylum on appeal, and the police describe the men as Iranian nationals with settled immigration status.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“was granted asylum on appeal when he converted to Christianity”
Elsewhere in the article“Iranian nationals with settled immigration status”
“had arrived illegally in the back of a lorry”
Why this matters
The Mail calls Sepahvand's arrival "illegally" in its own voice.
The impression it gives
His presence in the UK was unlawful.
The context
The article later reports he was granted asylum on appeal, so his status was recognised as lawful.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“was granted asylum on appeal”
“who had arrived in the UK by small boat and claimed asylum in 2022”
Why this matters
The Mail gives the small boat route and asylum claim of Noori alongside Manesh, early in the story.
The impression it gives
Noori's migration route is part of the offence.
The context
Noori was acquitted, and his arrival route has no bearing on the charges the article reports.
How we know
Elsewhere in the article“Noori was acquitted of the same charge”
What it gets right
“Noori was acquitted of the same charge after telling the jury he thought he was just 'out for a spin' with his friend”
The Mail reports the acquittal plainly and gives the defendant's own account, rather than leaving him tainted by the convictions.
“Sepahvand was sent instructions by two intelligence officers from the Iranian Revolutionary Guard Corps (IRGC)”
The Mail names who directed the operation, which matches the BBC and Times of Israel accounts of the trial.