WATCH: Animals react as earthquake rattles Tennessee

ABC News - May 10th, 2025

A 4.1 magnitude earthquake shook parts of Tennessee on Saturday, causing noticeable reactions among animals but fortunately leaving no immediate reports of injuries or damages. The tremor, which struck in the morning, surprised residents and particularly startled pets and wildlife, who exhibited agitated behaviors. This seismic event adds to the region's history of minor quakes, often causing concern among locals who are unaccustomed to such occurrences.

Tennessee, not typically known for significant seismic activity, experiences such tremors occasionally due to its location near the Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone. While this earthquake was relatively minor, it serves as a reminder of the geological activity in the area and the importance of preparedness for natural events. The incident also highlights the sensitivity of animals to environmental changes, a phenomenon observed globally in the aftermath of seismic events. Overall, the quake underscores the need for heightened awareness and readiness, even in regions with infrequent seismic disturbances.

Seismic Activity Tennessee Earthquake 4.1 Magnitude Animal Reactions Eastern Tennessee Seismic Zone

Story submitted by Fairstory

RATING

5.8

Moderately Fair

Read with skepticism

The news story effectively reports on a recent earthquake in Tennessee, providing key details such as magnitude and location. However, the focus on animal reactions lacks supporting evidence, affecting the story's accuracy and engagement. The article is timely and clear, making it accessible to readers, but the absence of source attribution and transparency limits its credibility. While the story holds some public interest due to the nature of the event, its potential impact is limited by the narrow focus and lack of depth. Overall, the article serves as a brief, timely report but would benefit from more comprehensive coverage and verification of claims.

Accuracy

The news story reports a 4.1 magnitude earthquake in Tennessee, which is consistent with the details found in other sources. The location, timing, and lack of immediate damage or injuries are accurately represented. However, the claim about animals reacting to the earthquake lacks specific details or evidence, such as eyewitness accounts or video footage, which makes this part of the report less verifiable. While the earthquake's magnitude and location are factual, the story would benefit from more precise information regarding the animal reactions to enhance verifiability.

Balance

The story primarily focuses on the earthquake and its immediate effects, particularly on animals, without exploring a wide range of perspectives. There is a lack of balance in terms of the human impact or community response, which could have provided a more comprehensive view. The article does not exhibit overt bias, but the emphasis on animal reactions without supporting evidence suggests a narrow focus that could be seen as an imbalance in coverage.

Clarity

The article is brief and straightforward, making it easy to understand. The language is clear, and the structure is logical, focusing on the key event and its immediate effects. However, the lack of detail regarding the animal reactions could lead to confusion or skepticism among readers. Overall, the clarity is adequate, but additional information would enhance comprehension.

Source quality

The story does not cite specific sources or authorities, such as the USGS, to support the earthquake details, which affects its credibility. The absence of attributed sources for the claim about animal reactions further diminishes the reliability of this aspect of the report. While the basic facts about the earthquake are likely drawn from reliable data, the lack of explicit source attribution weakens the overall source quality.

Transparency

The article lacks transparency regarding the sources of its information, particularly the claim about animal reactions. There is no explanation of how the information was gathered or verified. The story does not disclose any potential conflicts of interest or provide methodology details, which are critical for understanding the basis of the claims made. This lack of transparency may lead readers to question the reliability of the reported information.