It appears that the source of the confusion is the lack of articles. The 'true' headline is "revealed flaws in
A Pfizer vaccine trial", the misleading interpretation is "revealed flaws in
THE Pfizer vaccine trial".
Lead Stories emphasizes the significance of the other trials,
The BMJ emphasizes the significance of the findings, and neither is really lying.
Where Lead Stories goes overboard is in the way they present their title. It would be far more appropriate to title the story like this:
>Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Revealed Flaws In Only One Of Many Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials
In fact the use of the plural "Trials" in the fact-check title from Lead Stories is a malapropism, since the BMJ article clearly focuses on a single trial. The BMJ article also does not use the word "disqualifying" at all, nor does it supply such an implication.
The problem is not with fact-checking or even with attaching a fact-check to this particular story; the problem is that the content of the fact-check is structured like clickbait, with a classic motte-and-bailey title.
Where Lead Stories goes overboard is in the way they present their title. It would be far more appropriate to title the story like this:
>Fact Check: The British Medical Journal Revealed Flaws In Only One Of Many Pfizer COVID-19 Vaccine Trials
In fact the use of the plural "Trials" in the fact-check title from Lead Stories is a malapropism, since the BMJ article clearly focuses on a single trial. The BMJ article also does not use the word "disqualifying" at all, nor does it supply such an implication.
The problem is not with fact-checking or even with attaching a fact-check to this particular story; the problem is that the content of the fact-check is structured like clickbait, with a classic motte-and-bailey title.