At a first glance, it looks like this article provides sources and links to the articles and credentials it's referencing. However, if you actually click through the links, they're mostly links to other Breitbart articles, or the landing pages of referenced websites. What is this circumstantial evidence that they're talking about? They just link to the EMP commissions website like that means something, but don't provide any context. Also, providing a link to a think tanks landing page hardly provides credentials. Why wouldn't they link to his bio? On a different note, it really bothers me that this article is just an attempt to try to get you to listen to their podcast. They don't provide context for the quotes, so you'd have to listen to the podcast if you wanted to know what the questions were that he was answering.

It is a transcript of an interview with one person who has an opinion and point of view. It isn't necessarily a wrong opinion but the clear bias of the person being interviewed is that the nuclear negotiations with Korea and with Iran have put the US at risk. I think we need a better way to separate out opinion pieces since they can be trustworthy insofar as they represent that person's opinion. It doesn't claim to be investigative journalism so shouldn't be treated as such.

This was a very lazy job by John Hayward. Much like what other reviewers are mentioning, the article is essentially a transcript. The author does little to place what Gaffney is saying in context and does not cross examine anything that Gaffney claims. Gaffney, although a bright mind, is a single person that is just as capable of having his perspective warped by subconscious bias as anyone else. What the author should have done is bring up specific similarities in the Iranian and North Korean non-proliferation deals with the U.S. and NATO/UN Parties. Then, a discussion about Gaffney's claims, credible information available on the deals either verifying or negating said claims, and related security escalation implications should have followed. Although this could be labeled as "Newsworthy" or "Opinion Piece," depending on how heavily one would weigh the credibility of Gaffney's words, I see this article as a "Mistake" because it was largely a missed opportunity to appropriately address the high-tension issue at hand.

This article almost entirely consists of quotations from a single person with no other evidence to support the stated quotes. Sure I believe the guy said these things, but that doesn't make what he says true. It entirely lacks any form of secondary check on the information. The few links that are provided do not lead to any actual information about what is being discussed (other than a few other Breitbart articles).

Even though this article lacks of what are considered "reliable sources", it was meant to be written this way. The article is basically transcribing the interview quoted below, and expresses the thought of Frank Gaffney. His thoughts on the political situation are expressed in a clear way without any bias making the piece trustworthy. The title itself describes the piece as "Frank Gaffney's view on the nuclear situation with North Korea". The reader knows what he is going to read, and can decide to agree with his thoughts, or not.

It is clear it is the interviewee's opinion however I agree with another comment that isn't analyzed in any detIl

This article by John Hayward appears to be mostly a transcript from the SiriusXM show between Center for Security Policy President Frank Gaffney and SiriusXM host Raheem Kassam. The transcript provides history and context to the story, as well as how America (and other countries) might not be prepared to handle N. Korea's nuclear threats. No detectable bias or political agenda. The author also links the SiriusXM show at the bottom of the article in case you'd like to listen.

This article is almost entirely a transcript of a radio interview with Frank Gaffney, making it inherently opinion based, however it's transparent about it and the information presented seems accurate for the most part. There are a few times when Gaffney draws weak comparisons to Clinton and Obama's handlings with North Korea, but overall the piece seems trustworthy.

One interview from one person is not a reliable source especially coming from a news website such as Breitbart which is notoriously extremely conservative with strong political agendas. While there may be little wrong with the article itself (due to it being a transcript of a radio interview) it doesn't provide enough reliable sources to back up the speakers claims and therefore not trustworthy.

Pretty straight forward since it's basically recounting an interview. I don't see bias here.

Simplistic interview transcript, but I don't trust anything that comes out of brietbart's 'mouth'

I think this is a super important topic to discuss. Nuclear power is can either accelerate the human race into a state sustainability or bring about our complete destruction. I'm not entirely sure I trust Gaffney's opinion wholeheartedly (seeing as he is most notable as a conspiracy theorist), but I still agree with most of what is written as a skeptic myself. That being said, this article address issues that extremely prevalent in the world today, especially considering the unpredictability of the powers that be on both ends of this nuclear pissing contest.