West Bengal: Harassment reported against Special Roll Observer C. Murugan at hearing centre in South 24 Parganas district. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant facts or perspectives that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article states: "Harassment against Special Roll Observer C. Murugan was reported" and that BLAs "protested" and that "incidents of arguments" occurred, but it does not specify: - What exactly the alleged harassment consisted of (verbal, physical, procedural obstruction, etc.). - Whether there were any responses or statements from the Trinamool Congress, the BLAs, or from C. Murugan himself. - Whether any formal complaints were filed, or any action was taken by authorities. This lack of detail can lead readers to fill in gaps with assumptions, which may skew perception of the severity and nature of the incident.

3 suggestions

Specify the nature of the alleged harassment with concrete, sourced details (e.g., "According to [source], BLAs shouted slogans and blocked the observer’s entry for approximately 15 minutes"), or clearly state that details are not yet available.

Include statements or responses from all key parties involved: a representative of the Trinamool Congress, the Election Commission, and, if available, C. Murugan or his office.

Clarify whether any official complaints were lodged, any security or legal action was taken, and whether investigations are underway.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes one side’s perspective or framing while giving limited or no space to others.

The article presents the sequence: BLAs of the Trinamool Congress protested; the Election Commission had denied permission; arguments were reported. However, it does not: - Provide the Trinamool Congress’s justification or explanation for instructing BLAs to attend hearing centres despite the EC’s denial. - Provide any direct quote or explanation from the Election Commission about why BLAs were denied entry. As a result, the narrative implicitly aligns more with the Election Commission’s procedural stance and frames the BLAs primarily as a source of disruption, without their rationale.

3 suggestions

Add a brief explanation or quote from Trinamool Congress representatives explaining why BLAs were instructed to attend hearing centres (e.g., concerns about transparency, alleged irregularities, etc.), if available.

Include a clear explanation or quote from the Election Commission detailing the reasons for denying BLAs entry during the SIR proceedings.

Explicitly note if attempts were made to contact either side for comment and whether they declined to respond, to show effort toward balance.

Appeal to vagueness / lack of specificity (related to narrative fallacy)

Using vague terms that suggest a pattern or seriousness without providing enough detail to verify or contextualize it, which can encourage readers to infer a narrative.

The sentence: "Incidents of arguments between personnel associated with the hearing phase and Trinamool Congress BLAs were reported from several districts across West Bengal" is vague: - "Incidents of arguments" does not specify scale, frequency, or severity. - "Several districts" is imprecise and can make the issue seem either more widespread or more limited than it actually is. This vagueness can lead readers to construct their own narrative about widespread disruption without clear evidence.

3 suggestions

Quantify and specify where possible, e.g., "According to [source], such arguments were reported in at least X districts, including [names of districts]."

Clarify the nature and scale of the arguments, e.g., "These were described as brief verbal exchanges with no reported physical altercations" or, if not known, state that the severity is not yet clear.

If precise numbers are unavailable, explicitly acknowledge the limitation, e.g., "Exact numbers of such incidents are not yet available."