From the New York Times, it's The Headlines. I'm Will Jarvis, in for Tracy Mumford. Today's Thursday, September 3rd. Here's what we're covering.

A new Times investigation has found that a deadly explosion at a wedding in Iran this week was caused by a bomb dropped by US forces. The attack, which Iranian officials are calling a war crime, killed at least five people, including a 6-year-old boy, and injured at least 67 others, according to an Iranian aid group. It happened on Tuesday night in a port city close to the Strait of Hormuz as American forces said they were retaliating against Iranian attacks.

US Central Command said it struck communication sites, and video showed a large communications tower in the city being hit by an airstrike and crashing down. About 150 yards away, eyewitnesses said another airstrike hit a residential area, punching a hole through the roof of a home where guests were gathering for the wedding. Iranian news footage from the scene that The Times verified showed doors shattered, ceilings collapsed, and blood on the floor. One local photographer told The Times that most of the injured were women and children, and that in the chaotic aftermath, quote, "People were carrying small children in their arms trying to get them to the hospital in pickup trucks and any vehicles they could find."

The Times also collected videos of weapons remnants and shared them with a former US Army explosives expert who said they came from a glide bomb. That type of weapon is used by the Pentagon and not by Iran. In a video published by US forces on the night of the attack, that same type of bomb appeared to be loaded under the wings of a US fighter jet. In response to questions about the attack, a spokesman for Central Command said it was aware of reports and that, quote, "The US military never targets civilians."

Since the beginning of the war, The Times has verified damage to dozens of healthcare facilities and other civilian infrastructure in Iran. And my colleagues have found significant evidence that US-made weapons were used in deadly strikes that hit residential areas, a sports hall, and an elementary school.

"I am focused on who I think is currently the most progressive viable candidate in the race. And that's not just me saying this either. Progressive—" "With just two months to go until midterm elections—" "Come on. She's the only candidate in the race who has not taken a dime of corporate PAC money."

The Times has been digging into a surge of videos on social media that are being quietly paid for by political campaigns. We found literally hundreds of influencers around the country who had taken money ranging from as little as $10 per post up to huge sums of money to support a candidate. It's in state races, it's in federal races, it's even in mayoral and smaller level races. We're seeing this kind of paid content everywhere.

My colleague Ken Bensinger covers media and politics for the Times. He says that unless you dug deep into campaign finance reports, you'd almost never know that some of the people in your social media feed talking politics are taking money directly from politicians and political groups.

In general, there are very few laws requiring any kind of disclosure from social media influencers when it comes to paid political content, which is different than what we see for commercial content. So, if an influencer is being paid to promote toothpaste or vitamins, they are legally required under FTC rules to disclose that. Likewise, the Federal Elections Commission requires candidates when they do a billboard or TV ad to put a message in the bottom of the ad that says paid for by candidate blah blah blah. That is not something that they require for social media influencers. In a sense, the regulations haven't caught up to technology and are years behind. And there just are not good laws requiring disclosure except for in a handful of states.

Meanwhile, Ken says one of the ways campaigns connect with influencers is by using online platforms where content creators offer their services to anyone willing to pay. And in some cases, that's had pretty surprising results. For example: "It's time we pick a candidate that's actually going to help the everyday citizens here in Michigan and that's going to—" A few weeks ago, a young woman went on TikTok to share her support for one Democratic primary candidate in Michigan. But the next day: "I'm so annoyed right now. So, I live in Wisconsin and our utility bills just got doubled." She posted a video from a separate account complaining about the cost of living in Wisconsin. And financial records the Times reviewed show that she's actually based in Missouri, where she's made more than $30,000 posting on social media.

With few legal limits on what is and isn't fair game, even some people involved in making online political content are calling for guardrails. The founder of one group for influencers interested in politics told the Times, quote, "With no standards, there's going to be a race to the bottom."

In Massachusetts today, a jury is set to deliberate for a sixth day in the high-profile murder trial of Lindsay Clancy, the mother accused of strangling her three young children. The jurors have told the judge twice that they couldn't reach a consensus. And both times, the judge told them to go back and keep deliberating. If they can't agree on a verdict, that would mean a mistrial and prosecutors would have to decide whether to start the trial all over again.

Clancy has not denied that she killed her children, but her lawyers have argued that she can't be held legally responsible because at the time she was suffering from postpartum psychosis. In the months leading up to the killings, Clancy reported disturbing and intrusive thoughts, self-admitted to a psychiatric hospital, and was prescribed a long list of psychiatric medications. Her lawyer said that she had heard a voice that ordered her to kill her kids. And despite the horror of what happened, there has been an outpouring of support for Clancy with hundreds of people showing up outside the courthouse saying that the healthcare system failed her.

What's been really striking about this case is that it has really sparked a national discussion about how women with maternal mental health issues are treated. Pam Belluck covers health for the times. She says that while the specific condition at the center of this case, postpartum psychosis is rare, as many as one in seven women experience conditions such as depression, anxiety, or obsessive-compulsive disorder during pregnancy or in the year after having a baby. And recently, as the Clancy trial has been everywhere in the news and on social media, maternal health experts say they're getting tons of inquiries both from new and expectant mothers who are worried about their own mental health as well as from other doctors.

Experts who treat severe maternal mental illnesses have told me that they are hearing from obstetricians, from community mental health providers who don't specialize in this, from pediatricians, from young trainees in the field who are feeling a little bit out of their depth. They're worried they're going to be missing diagnoses. And so, what I've heard over and over again from experts who work with these patients is that their hope is that this tragedy will also help people understand that there are resources available. There's been actually a lot of progress made in treating some of these illnesses over the last several years. And that as heartbreaking as this case is, it might provide an opportunity for there to be improvements in the way that women who are suffering are treated.

Yesterday, the NBA handed down the largest punishment in the league's history after an investigation into a scandal that has consumed pro basketball. A year-long probe by the NBA found that the LA Clippers had secretly gone around the league's strict salary cap rules. Those rules are meant to keep an even playing field across the league, but the NBA said the Clippers helped funnel millions of extra dollars to their star player, Kawhi Leonard.

The scandal burst into public view last September when the journalist Pablo Torre reported that Leonard had accepted a $28 million sponsorship deal from a company that had partnered with the Clippers, a deal for which Leonard appears to have done no work. The NBA says that the Clippers owner, Steve Ballmer, personally helped Leonard secure that agreement, saying it was off-court income that violated the league's rules.

Now, the NBA has suspended Ballmer for a year, fined the Clippers $30 million, fined Leonard himself $700,000, and sanctioned Leonard's uncle, who represented him at the time the deal was coming together. The Clippers will also lose five first-round draft picks in the coming years, which one NBA reporter said was as close to a death sentence for team building as you can get.

In response to the punishment, the Clippers said they vehemently rejected the NBA's findings and pledged to challenge them through every avenue available. For his part, Leonard released a statement saying he regretted the distraction caused by the scandal, and that, quote, "I accept full responsibility for lapses in judgment by people within my inner circle."

And finally: "I didn't think of myself as a rebel, or did I? I don't know. It's just all I knew was that marriage was presented to us in the '50s as your only life-changing device, you—"

Gloria Steinem, the feminist crusader who helped galvanize the modern women's movement, has died at 92. Steinem had her own feminist awakening in her mid-30s when as a journalist she attended a meeting of women discussing their illegal abortions in the late '60s. It spurred her to become what she called a quote entrepreneur of social change. She co-founded Ms. Magazine, the first glossy national periodical to be created, owned, and run entirely by women. And the magazine helped mobilize and embolden women as they fought discrimination, harassment, and abuse. Steinem was known for saying quote, "When we started, there was not even a term for sexual harassment. It was just called life."

Over the decades, Steinem led protests, gave speeches, wrote essays, raised money for women's causes, and helped push sweeping cultural transformations of American society, becoming something of a lightning rod for conservative criticism, and a hero for many on the left. In an interview with the times to be released after her death, Steinem reflected on her accomplishments.

"As you look back, is there any one in particular that you're most proud of achieving?" "I can tell you what makes me feel the most fulfilled and happy. And that is when someone comes up to me in a plane or on the street or wherever and tells me how their lives have changed because of the women's movement. And at that moment, I often think to myself, you know, if only this it would have been enough."

You can find the full obituary for Steinem at nytimes.com. Those are the headlines.

Today on The Daily: "I think we have to look reality in the face. What we know now is that these systems do not naturally gravitate toward what we would consider good or ethical behavior." Times tech columnist Kevin Roose tells the story of how one AI system went rogue and what it says about the safety of the technology going forward. You can listen to that in the New York Times app or wherever you get your podcasts.

I'm Will Jarvis. We'll be back tomorrow.