Nepal slaps Chinese firm with corruption case over Pokhara airport: What are the charges against China CAMC Engineering?. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s claims or evidence extensively while giving little or no space to the other side’s perspective or response.

Throughout the article, only the allegations and findings from Nepal’s CIAA and the parliamentary sub‑panel are presented. There is no mention of any response, denial, justification, or legal defense from China CAMC Engineering Co, Sinomach, CAAN, or the named Nepali officials. Examples: - “However, the CIIA alleged that China CAMC Engineering Co manipulated the cost estimates to gain ‘illegal benefits’.” - “The sub-panel’s report had said that the soil used at the construction site was not suitable… no such activity was undertaken.” - “The sub-panel’s report concluded that CAAN, which oversaw the construction, was directly involved in corruption, and recommended the immediate suspension of its director general.” All of these are serious accusations, but the article does not indicate whether the accused parties were contacted, whether they responded, or whether they contest the findings.

4 suggestions

Explicitly state whether attempts were made to obtain comments from China CAMC Engineering Co, Sinomach, CAAN, and the named Nepali officials, and include their responses or note that they declined to comment.

Clarify that the case has been filed and allegations are under judicial consideration, and that guilt has not been legally established unless there is a final court ruling.

Add context on any public statements, press releases, or legal filings from the accused parties that present their side of the story, even if briefly summarized.

Use balancing phrases such as “according to the CIAA’s filing” or “the sub-panel alleges” consistently, and pair them with any available counter‑claims or explanations from the accused.

Appeal to authority

Relying heavily on the authority of institutions or committees as proof, without clarifying the provisional or contested nature of their claims.

The article leans on the authority of the CIAA and the parliamentary sub‑panel to present allegations as de facto conclusions, without emphasizing that these are still subject to legal scrutiny. Examples: - “Earlier, an investigation made by a sub-panel of the Nepal House of Representatives' Public Accounts Committee (PAC) had also confirmed irregularities and corruption in the construction of the airport.” - “The sub-panel’s report concluded that CAAN, which oversaw the construction, was directly involved in corruption…” The wording “confirmed” and “concluded” can be read as final judgments rather than findings that may be challenged in court.

3 suggestions

Replace definitive terms like “confirmed irregularities and corruption” with more neutral phrasing such as “reported irregularities and alleged corruption” or “found evidence suggesting possible irregularities and corruption.”

Add a clarifying sentence such as: “These findings are part of an investigative report and may be contested in ongoing or future legal proceedings.”

When citing committee conclusions, explicitly label them as ‘findings of the committee’ rather than as established facts, unless there is a final court verdict to reference.

Framing effect / Biased language (mild)

Using wording that subtly frames one side as clearly malicious or guilty, even when the legal process is ongoing.

Some phrases, while attributed, are repeated without clear distancing, which can reinforce a perception of guilt: - “acted with bad intentions, increased the cost estimate unnaturally without reasonable cause, and forced the other involved defendants…” - “with bad intentions to increase the cost estimate by setting an unnatural price…” Although these are quoted from the CIAA, the article does not consistently remind readers that these are allegations, not established facts.

3 suggestions

Ensure every strongly value-laden phrase is clearly attributed and framed as an allegation, e.g., “In its filing, the CIAA claims that the contractor ‘acted with bad intentions…’.”

Add brief clarifications such as: “These characterizations reflect the CIAA’s position and have not yet been adjudicated in court.”

Avoid repeating loaded terms like “bad intentions” in the journalist’s own narrative voice; keep them inside quotation marks and explicitly tied to the source.

Omission of key information

Leaving out contextual details that are important for readers to fully understand the status and implications of the allegations.

The article does not provide key contextual information such as: - The current legal stage of the case (e.g., whether indictments have been accepted, whether trials have begun, or any prior rulings). - Whether China CAMC Engineering Co or other defendants have issued public statements or legal responses. - Whether there are any independent technical or financial audits that corroborate or challenge the CIAA and PAC findings. This omission can lead readers to assume that the allegations are already legally settled.

4 suggestions

Add a short section on the procedural status: for example, whether the special court has admitted the case, scheduled hearings, or issued any interim orders.

Include any known public responses from China CAMC Engineering Co, CAAN, or implicated officials, or explicitly state that no public response has been reported so far.

Mention whether independent audits, international aviation bodies, or third‑party engineering assessments have evaluated the project, and summarize their findings if available.

Clarify the time frame of the alleged irregularities and how long investigations have been ongoing, to give readers a sense of process rather than a snapshot of accusations only.

Confirmation bias / Selective use of sources (mild)

Presenting only sources that support one narrative, which can reinforce a single interpretation and exclude potentially relevant counter‑evidence.

All cited sources (CIAA, PAC sub‑panel, high‑level study committee) point in the same direction: that there were serious irregularities and design flaws. No sources are cited that might offer alternative explanations (e.g., technical constraints of the site, cost escalations due to external factors, or defenses by the contractor). This is not overt propaganda, but it does create a one‑sided evidentiary picture.

3 suggestions

Seek and include at least one independent expert view (e.g., aviation engineer, infrastructure economist) that can contextualize whether the reported cost increases and design issues are unusual or could have non‑corrupt explanations.

If available, reference any audits or reports that partially support but also partially contradict the CIAA/PAC findings, and summarize both supporting and conflicting points.

Explicitly acknowledge the limitation of the current information, e.g., “The article is based on official Nepali investigative reports; independent verification of all technical and financial claims is not yet publicly available.”