Saudi Arabia sets executions record in 2025, putting 356 people to death. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language / framing effect

Using wording or framing that subtly encourages readers to adopt a particular evaluative stance, even when facts are correct.

1) Headline: "Saudi Arabia sets executions record in 2025, putting 356 people to death". 2) "record-breaking numbers were ‘proof that promises regarding human rights reforms in Saudi Arabia have no value’. She added that the executions served as a message of ‘intimidation and fear for everyone’, including ‘migrant workers, minors and political opponents’." 3) "The Gulf kingdom has faced sustained criticism over its use of the death penalty, which rights groups have condemned as excessive and in marked contrast to the country’s efforts to present a modern image to the world." 4) "Activists say Riyadh’s continued embrace of capital punishment undermines the image of a more open, tolerant society that is central to de facto leader Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 reform agenda."

5 suggestions

Clarify in the headline that the figure is based on an AFP tally and avoid implicitly evaluative wording. For example: "AFP tally: Saudi Arabia executed 356 people in 2025, highest annual figure recorded".

When presenting the quote "proof that promises regarding human rights reforms in Saudi Arabia have no value", explicitly attribute it and separate it from the reporter’s voice. For example: "Duaa Dhainy ... described the numbers as, in her view, ‘proof that promises regarding human rights reforms in Saudi Arabia have no value’."

For the phrase "message of intimidation and fear for everyone", make clear this is an allegation, not an established fact. For example: "She argued that the executions are intended as a ‘message of intimidation and fear’, particularly for migrant workers, minors and political opponents."

In the sentence "rights groups have condemned [the death penalty] as excessive and in marked contrast to the country’s efforts to present a modern image", add balancing attribution and possibly a brief note on Saudi legal justifications. For example: "Rights groups have condemned the scale of executions as excessive and say it contrasts with the country’s efforts to present a modern image, while Saudi authorities maintain that capital punishment is applied in accordance with Islamic law and is necessary to maintain public order."

In the sentence about "continued embrace of capital punishment undermines the image of a more open, tolerant society", clearly attribute this as an opinion and, if possible, include any Saudi response or alternative view. For example: "Activists argue that Riyadh’s continued use of capital punishment undermines the image of a more open, tolerant society that is central to Crown Prince Mohammed bin Salman’s Vision 2030 reform agenda; Saudi officials, however, say the reforms can coexist with strict criminal penalties."

Unbalanced reporting / selective use of sources

Giving more space, detail, or emotional weight to one side’s perspective than to another’s, or relying on a narrow set of sources that share a similar viewpoint.

The article quotes at length from a human-rights researcher (Duaa Dhainy) and summarizes the positions of rights groups and activists, but the Saudi government’s position is only briefly paraphrased: "Authorities in the kingdom, however, argue that the death penalty is necessary to maintain public order and is used only after all avenues for appeal have been exhausted." No Saudi official is named or quoted directly, and no detailed explanation of their rationale or legal framework is provided, whereas the critical side is represented by a named expert, a named organization, and multiple evaluative claims.

4 suggestions

Include at least one named Saudi official or official statement (e.g., from the Ministry of Interior or a government spokesperson) with a direct quote explaining the rationale for the executions, the legal standards applied, and any claimed safeguards.

Provide more detail on the Saudi legal framework for capital punishment (e.g., types of crimes eligible for the death penalty, appeal procedures, any recent reforms) to balance the detailed criticisms from rights groups.

If available, include data or statements from neutral or third-party legal experts on how Saudi execution rates compare to other countries, and how its legal process functions, to broaden the range of perspectives beyond rights groups and Saudi authorities.

Explicitly acknowledge the asymmetry of sources if official comment was sought but not provided. For example: "Saudi authorities did not respond to AFP’s request for comment on the figures and the criticism from rights groups."

Appeal to emotion / affect heuristic

Using emotionally charged examples or language that may lead readers to form judgments based more on emotional reaction than on a balanced assessment of facts.

The quote: "She added that the executions served as a message of ‘intimidation and fear for everyone’, including ‘migrant workers, minors and political opponents’." This highlights particularly vulnerable or sympathetic groups (migrant workers, minors, political opponents) without providing specific case data or legal context, which can strongly shape emotional reactions.

3 suggestions

Accompany the emotional claim with concrete, verifiable information. For example: "According to the European Saudi Organisation for Human Rights, X of those executed in 2025 were foreign nationals, Y were alleged to have been minors at the time of the offence, and Z were convicted on charges related to political dissent."

Clarify that the statement reflects the activist’s interpretation. For example: "Dhainy argued that the executions are intended as a message of intimidation and fear, particularly for migrant workers, minors and political opponents, though Saudi authorities have not publicly framed the policy in these terms."

Balance emotionally charged claims with neutral descriptions of the legal categories involved (e.g., specify the charges or legal articles under which these groups were prosecuted) to help readers distinguish between emotional impact and legal facts.

Omission of key information / potential cherry-picking

Leaving out relevant contextual information that would help readers fully understand the issue, which can unintentionally bias interpretation.

The article notes that 243 people were executed in drug-related cases and that Saudi Arabia resumed executions for drug offences in late 2022, but it does not provide: - Any breakdown of the other categories of crimes (e.g., murder, terrorism-related offences). - Comparative data (e.g., how Saudi execution rates compare to previous decades or to other countries). - Any detail on the legal standards of proof, access to counsel, or appeal mechanisms, beyond a brief general statement. This absence can make the situation appear in a particular light (e.g., a sudden, unexplained surge) without full context.

4 suggestions

Add a breakdown of executions by type of offence, if available. For example: "Of the 356 executions, 243 were for drug-related offences, X for murder, Y for terrorism-related charges, and Z for other crimes, according to AFP’s tally based on official announcements."

Include historical context beyond just 2024 and 2025. For example: "By comparison, Saudi Arabia executed N people in 2023, M in 2022, and an annual average of K between 2010 and 2019, according to Amnesty International."

Provide comparative international context, if reliable data exist. For example: "Saudi Arabia’s execution rate per capita ranks among the highest globally, alongside countries such as [X, Y], according to [source]."

Offer more detail on due process: "Saudi authorities state that defendants have access to legal representation and multiple levels of appeal, including the Supreme Court, before a death sentence is carried out; rights groups dispute the adequacy of these safeguards, citing cases where they allege confessions were obtained under duress."