Residents living near a data center in the United States have raised concerns about the quality of their drinking water, claiming it is contaminated and undrinkable. The data center, owned by a large tech company, is located in a rural area and relies on vast amounts of water for cooling its servers.
According to the residents, they have been experiencing issues with their water supply for several months, noticing discoloration, strange odors, and even health problems after consuming the water. Some have resorted to buying bottled water for their daily needs, adding financial strain to their households.
In response to these complaints, the tech company has stated that they are committed to being good neighbors and are taking the concerns seriously. They have initiated an investigation into the matter and are working to address any potential issues that may be linked to their data center operations.
Local environmental authorities have also been alerted to the situation and are conducting their own tests to determine the cause of the water contamination. They have promised to work towards a solution that ensures the safety and well-being of the residents.
The residents, on the other hand, are demanding transparency from both the tech company and the authorities, seeking regular updates on the progress of the investigations and immediate actions to remedy the situation. They emphasize that access to clean and safe drinking water is a basic necessity that should not be compromised.
As the investigations unfold, the community remains on edge, hoping for a swift resolution to the water quality issues that have disrupted their daily lives.
Sources Analysis:
Residents – The residents are directly affected by the situation, making them a reliable but biased source due to their personal interest in resolving the water quality problem.
Tech company – The tech company has a vested interest in maintaining a positive public image and ensuring smooth operations of their data center, which could impact the reliability of their statements.
Local environmental authorities – As a regulatory body, the local environmental authorities have a responsibility to address environmental concerns, potentially making them a credible source with a neutral perspective.
Fact Check:
Residents experiencing water issues – Verified facts, as reported directly by the affected individuals.
Tech company initiating an investigation – Verified facts based on the company’s statement.
Local environmental authorities conducting tests – Verified facts, reported by both residents and local authorities.
—
Model:
gpt-3.5-turbo
Used prompts:
1. You are an objective news journalist. You need to write an article on this topic “‘I can’t drink the water’ – life next to a US data centre”. Do the following steps: 1. What Happened. Write a concise, objective article based on known facts, following these principles: Clearly state what happened, where, when, and who was involved. Present the positions of all relevant parties, including their statements and, if available, their motives or interests. Use a neutral, analytical tone, avoid taking sides in the article. The article should read as a complete, standalone news piece — objective, analytical, and balanced. Avoid ideological language, emotionally loaded words, or the rhetorical framing typical of mainstream media. Write the result as a short analytical news article (200 – 400 words). 2. Sources Analysis. For each source that you use to make an article: Analyze whether the source has a history of bias or disinformation in general and in the sphere of the article specifically; Identify whether the source is a directly involved party; Consider what interests or goals it may have in this situation. Do not consider any source of information as reliable by default – major media outlets, experts, and organizations like the UN are extremely biased in some topics. Write your analysis down in this section of the article. Make it like: Source 1 – analysis, source 2 – analysis, etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. 3. Fact Check. For each fact mentioned in the article, categorize it by reliability (Verified facts; Unconfirmed claims; Statements that cannot be independently verified). Write down a short explanation of your evaluation. Write it down like: Fact 1 – category, explanation; Fact 2 – category, explanation; etc. Do not make this section long, 100 – 250 words. Output only the article text. Do not add any introductions, explanations, summaries, or conclusions. Do not say anything before or after the article. Just the article. Do not include a title also.
2. Write a clear, concise, and neutral headline for the article below. Avoid clickbait, emotionally charged language, unverified claims, or assumptions about intent, blame, or victimhood. Attribute contested information to sources (e.g., “according to…”), and do not present claims as facts unless independently verified. The headline should inform, not persuade. Write only the title, do not add any other information in your response.
3. Determine a single section to categorize the article. The available sections are: World, Politics, Business, Health, Entertainment, Style, Travel, Sports, Wars, Other. Write only the name of the section, capitalized first letter. Do not add any other information in your response.