The story makes several claims about Big Tech's use of copyrighted material for AI training and the legal context surrounding it. While it accurately references the federal court ruling in *Thomson Reuters v. ROSS*, which indeed addressed the limits of 'fair use' in competitive scenarios, the story's assertion that Big Tech companies are lobbying for a rollback of copyright laws requires further verification. The claim that Google and OpenAI wrote to the White House about this issue needs direct evidence or citations to confirm its accuracy. Additionally, the mention of ongoing lawsuits by The New York Times and Alden Global Capital against OpenAI and Microsoft is plausible but should be backed by specific legal documents or statements for full accuracy.

The article presents a predominantly critical view of Big Tech, emphasizing their alleged attempts to bypass copyright laws for AI development. It does not provide a balanced perspective by including viewpoints from the companies involved or experts who might argue the benefits of their actions in terms of innovation or economic growth. The story could be more balanced by presenting arguments from Big Tech representatives or legal experts who might justify the use of copyrighted material under certain conditions.

The language of the article is clear and direct, making it relatively easy for readers to follow the main arguments. However, the tone is somewhat sensational, which might detract from an objective presentation of the facts. The structure is logical, with a clear progression from the introduction of the issue to the discussion of its implications, but the use of charged language could impact the perceived neutrality.

The story lacks direct citations or references to authoritative sources that could substantiate its claims. While it mentions court cases and alleged lobbying efforts, it does not provide links to legal documents, official statements, or credible reports that would enhance the reliability of the information presented. The absence of named sources or direct quotes from involved parties weakens the story's credibility.

The article does not clearly disclose the basis for its claims or the sources of its information. It lacks transparency in explaining how the information was obtained, whether through direct reporting, secondary sources, or speculation. Additionally, there is no mention of potential conflicts of interest or biases that might influence the story's perspective, which could help readers assess its impartiality.