PM Modi inaugurates new terminal building of Lokapriya Gopinath Bardoloi International Airport in Guwahati. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual details or perspectives that could affect how the reader interprets the event.

The article only states that PM Modi inaugurated the new terminal, unveiled a statue, and will inaugurate projects worth 15,600 crore rupees. It does not mention: - Any information about the funding source, costs vs. expected benefits, or timelines. - Any reactions from local residents, airport users, opposition parties, or independent experts. - Any potential controversies, delays, or criticisms related to the airport project or the statue, if they exist. This creates a one-dimensional, purely positive framing of the visit and projects, even though the language itself is neutral.

4 suggestions

Add basic context on the project: e.g., total cost of the new terminal, expected capacity, and how it compares to the previous infrastructure.

Include at least one independent or expert perspective on the impact of the new terminal and associated projects (e.g., on regional connectivity, environment, or local economy).

If relevant, mention any known criticisms or concerns (e.g., about spending priorities, land acquisition, environmental impact) in a factual, sourced manner.

Include reactions from a range of stakeholders (local residents, business owners, opposition representatives) to balance the government’s presentation of the projects.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side of an issue or event, which can implicitly favor that side even without overtly biased language.

The article focuses exclusively on the actions of PM Modi and the government: inauguration of the terminal, unveiling of the statue, and announcement of projects worth 15,600 crore rupees. No other actors or viewpoints are mentioned. While this may be acceptable for a very short event brief, it still results in an implicit favoring of the government’s narrative by omission of any alternative or critical perspectives.

3 suggestions

Clarify the genre of the piece (e.g., label it explicitly as a short event brief) so readers understand that it is not a comprehensive analysis.

Where space allows, add at least one sentence summarizing broader context or differing views, such as: ‘Opposition parties have previously raised concerns about…’ or ‘Some local residents welcomed the development, while others expressed worries about…’.

If no significant controversy exists, state that explicitly (e.g., ‘The project has largely received cross-party support’), supported by sources, to show that the absence of criticism is itself a factual point rather than an omission.