Any time an "intelligence" company is sited in an article, especially if using only one source, it should be standard practice to site ownership and main clients. Storyful, the company sited here, has ABC News (debate holders), Google, Facebook and the Washington Post as clients and is owned by News Corp (yep, Rupert Murdoch). Not proof positive that they have a financial stake in outcomes but it does call their results into question.

The writer cited data from only one company as the basis for her conclusions. Additionally, the reporting raised the question as to whether a campaign was responsible for the bot-like activity discussed. The reporter should have sought an answer to that question and summarized her findings. The story reads somewhat like a promo for the data company.

The information presented is credible but there is more information about presidential candidates social media successes during the last debate rather than what the headline states. I would've like to see a response (or attempt to get a response) from the social media companies on this recent report from Storyful.

This is a very surface level piece that bounces from point to point faster than it can provide supporting evidence or context. I agree with reviewer Michael B. that this article reads like a promo for the social media data company Storyful. I'm not sure I got anything of value out of reading this piece, but I've read Sara Fischer's work before and know she can do much better.