Army issues advisory on use of social media to its personnel for responsible  online behaviour. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context or perspectives that would help readers fully understand the implications of the information presented.

The article only presents the Indian Army’s rules and internal clarifications: for example, "Sources in the Indian Army said that Army personnel have been allowed to access Instagram only for the purposes of viewing and monitoring" and "Uploading of any user-generated content, messages or posts on these platforms has been prohibited." There is no mention of why these rules were updated now, whether they change previous policy, how personnel feel about them, or any expert/legal commentary on privacy, morale, or rights. This creates a one-sided, purely institutional view.

4 suggestions

Add context on the rationale and timing: e.g., include information on whether there have been recent security incidents or leaks that prompted the advisory, and whether this is a tightening or clarification of existing rules.

Include perspectives from affected personnel (anonymized if necessary) or representative bodies on how these restrictions impact their daily life, morale, or communication with family and friends.

Incorporate expert or legal commentary (e.g., from defense analysts, cybersecurity experts, or legal scholars) on the balance between operational security and individual rights, and how this compares with policies in other countries’ armed forces.

Clarify whether there are any appeal or review mechanisms for these rules, and whether they are temporary or subject to periodic review.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one side’s perspective or interests without proportionate representation of other relevant sides.

The article exclusively reflects the institutional position of the Indian Army via unnamed "sources" and describes the rules as given. There is no countervailing or complementary perspective from soldiers, veterans, civil liberties advocates, or independent analysts. As a result, the Army’s view is structurally favored, even though the tone is neutral.

3 suggestions

Add at least one independent source (e.g., a defense analyst or digital rights expert) to comment on the implications of these rules and whether they align with best practices in operational security.

Include a brief reaction from serving personnel or veterans (with appropriate anonymity and security considerations) to show how the policy is perceived on the ground.

Provide comparative context: mention how similar or different these rules are from those in other security forces or foreign militaries, to avoid implicitly normalizing one institutional approach as the only standard.

Anonymous sources

Relying on unnamed sources without explaining why anonymity is necessary or how their credibility is ensured.

The article repeatedly attributes information to "sources in the Indian Army" and "the sources also added" without naming any official, department, or providing an explanation for anonymity. While anonymity can be justified in security contexts, the article does not explicitly state why these sources are unnamed or whether this reflects an official, on-record policy document.

3 suggestions

Clarify the nature of the sources: e.g., specify that the information comes from an official internal communication or from an authorized spokesperson speaking on background.

Explain briefly why anonymity is used (e.g., security protocol, internal nature of the advisory) to help readers assess credibility.

Where possible, reference the advisory itself (e.g., date, type of document) or quote from it directly, so readers can distinguish between official text and paraphrased comments from unnamed individuals.