The story makes several claims about the TikTok deal and its connection to U.S.-China tariffs. It suggests that the Oracle-led consortium was the only serious contender considered by the White House, which aligns with reports that Oracle was indeed a key player in the proposed deal. However, the story implies that the deal was entirely halted due to tariffs, which needs further verification as the situation involves complex geopolitical factors. The mention of President Trump's tariffs affecting the deal's approval by China is consistent with the broader trade tensions but lacks specific source attribution within the article itself. The claim that ByteDance would maintain control of its algorithm and the proposal's details need more precise confirmation from official statements or reliable sources.

The article primarily focuses on the U.S. perspective, particularly the actions and implications of President Trump's decisions. It lacks a balanced view by not adequately representing the Chinese government's perspective or the viewpoints of other stakeholders like ByteDance or TikTok's employees. The narrative seems to imply a certain bias against the Trump administration's handling of the situation, which may suggest favoritism in its tone. Including more perspectives from Chinese officials or independent analysts could have provided a more balanced view of the situation.

The article's structure is somewhat disjointed, with abrupt transitions between topics such as the TikTok deal, tariffs, and political implications. The language is occasionally unclear, with incomplete sentences and a lack of logical flow. For example, the sentence 'And now, thanks to President tariff war, no one may get to buy TikTok' lacks clarity and completeness. The tone appears informal and somewhat biased, which can detract from the reader's understanding of the complex issues at play. A more structured approach with clear, concise language would improve clarity.

The article does not clearly cite its sources, relying instead on vague references such as 'people familiar with the matter' and 'as others have reported.' This lack of direct attribution undermines the credibility of the information presented. The absence of authoritative sources like official government statements, company press releases, or expert analysis diminishes the reliability of the claims made. The story would benefit from more transparent sourcing, particularly given the complex nature of international trade and political negotiations.

The article lacks transparency regarding its sources and the basis for its claims. There is no clear explanation of the methodology used to gather information or any disclosure of potential conflicts of interest. The narrative does not provide sufficient context for understanding the broader implications of the TikTok deal or the tariff situation, which affects the reader's ability to fully grasp the story's significance. Greater transparency in sourcing and context would enhance the article's credibility and reader understanding.