‘Not if but when’: Swiss ski resort bar narrowly avoided fatal blaze in 2019. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism

Use of dramatic, emotionally charged wording and framing to heighten impact beyond what is needed to convey the facts.

Phrases such as: - “The chilling video, which can be viewed in the player above…” - “At the time, disaster was narrowly avoided. Half a decade on, however, that same warning came far too late.” - “The nightclub, described by investigators as a ‘deathtrap’…” - “rapidly developed into a deadly ‘flashover’, igniting much of the venue within seconds and filling the basement with toxic smoke, leaving partygoers with almost no chance of escape.” These formulations emphasize horror and drama. While the event is indeed tragic, the language goes beyond neutral description and contributes to an emotionally heightened narrative.

4 suggestions

Replace “The chilling video, which can be viewed in the player above…” with a more neutral description such as: “The video, which can be viewed in the player above, shows a waiter repeatedly warning patrons about the ceiling foam.”

Change “At the time, disaster was narrowly avoided. Half a decade on, however, that same warning came far too late.” to a more factual timeline: “In 2019, a similar situation did not result in a fire. In 2024, a fire at the same venue caused 40 deaths and 116 injuries.”

Rephrase “rapidly developed into a deadly ‘flashover’… leaving partygoers with almost no chance of escape” to: “Authorities say the fire developed rapidly into what they describe as a ‘flashover’, severely limiting opportunities for evacuation.”

When using strong terms like “deathtrap”, clearly attribute and contextualize: “Investigators have described the nightclub as a ‘deathtrap’, citing the lack of recent safety inspections and the presence of flammable ceiling materials.”

Appeal to emotion

Emphasizing emotional impact to influence readers’ reactions rather than focusing strictly on verifiable facts.

Examples include: - “The staffer’s warning was delivered to a crowd six years before the deadly inferno…” - “At the time, disaster was narrowly avoided. Half a decade on, however, that same warning came far too late.” - “leaving partygoers with almost no chance of escape.” These lines are structured to evoke fear, sadness, and anger, reinforcing a narrative of inevitability and helplessness rather than simply reporting the sequence of events and findings.

3 suggestions

Present the timeline without rhetorical contrast: “The warning in the 2019 video predates the 2024 fire at the same venue by about five years.”

Replace “deadly inferno” with “fatal fire” or “deadly fire” to reduce emotive connotations while remaining accurate.

Change “leaving partygoers with almost no chance of escape” to an attributed, factual statement: “According to investigators, the speed of the fire and smoke spread made evacuation extremely difficult.”

Biased language

Use of loaded or judgmental terms that implicitly assign blame or moral judgment.

Key instances: - Headline and subheading framing: “‘Not if but when’: Swiss ski resort bar narrowly avoided fatal blaze in 2019” suggests inevitability and a long-foreseen disaster, which may go beyond what is strictly established. - “The nightclub, described by investigators as a ‘deathtrap’…” – while attributed, the term is highly loaded and is not balanced with any technical description of specific code violations or risk assessments. - “It is very easy to come and cry and scream now at us but how about before?” – quoted from the mayor, but presented without contextual clarification that this is his perspective, which can frame critics as unreasonable. These choices subtly steer readers toward a particular moral framing (inevitability, gross negligence) without fully laying out comparative regulatory context or alternative interpretations.

3 suggestions

Clarify that the sense of inevitability is a viewpoint, not an established fact: e.g., “Some officials and former staff have suggested that a serious incident at the bar was a matter of time.”

When using “deathtrap”, immediately follow with specific, neutral details: “Investigators have described the nightclub as a ‘deathtrap’, citing the lack of annual inspections required by law and the use of flammable ceiling foam.”

After quoting the mayor’s line about people coming to ‘cry and scream’, add a balancing sentence: “Families of victims and critics, however, argue that it was the authorities’ responsibility to ensure regular inspections, regardless of public complaints.”

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting more detail or emotional weight for one side than for others, without equivalent space for their perspectives or relevant context.

The article gives detailed descriptions of alleged safety failures (locked fire extinguishers, locked emergency exits, lack of inspections) and strong language like “deathtrap”, but the bar owners’ defense is limited to a brief denial: “Mr Moretti has denied wrongdoing and claimed his bar ‘followed all safety regulations’, despite reportedly being inspected only ‘three times in ten years’.” There is no exploration of: - What specific regulations applied and whether there is documentary evidence of compliance or non-compliance. - Whether the inspection frequency claim is confirmed by authorities. - Any response from the owners to the former staff’s specific allegations (locked extinguishers, exits). Similarly, the municipality’s perspective is mostly limited to expressions of regret and a statement that they see themselves as victims, without additional context on why inspections lapsed (e.g., staffing, pandemic, administrative changes). This creates a tilt toward a narrative of clear negligence without fully presenting the other sides’ explanations or the broader regulatory environment.

4 suggestions

Include more detail on the owners’ position, if available: for example, any written statements, legal filings, or specific claims about safety measures in place at the time of the fire.

Seek and report a response from the owners or their representatives to the former staff’s specific allegations about locked fire extinguishers and emergency exits, or explicitly state that they were contacted and declined to comment.

Provide more context on the inspection regime: how inspections are scheduled, whether other venues also missed inspections between 2020 and 2025, and whether the pandemic or other factors affected enforcement.

Clarify that the criminal investigation is ongoing and that liability has not yet been legally established, emphasizing the presumption of innocence for the owners and any officials under scrutiny.

Unsubstantiated claims / Cherry-picking data

Presenting allegations or isolated data points without clear sourcing or broader context, which can lead to a skewed impression.

Examples: - “Former staff have alleged serious safety failures, claiming fire extinguishers were kept under lock and key and that emergency exits were often locked.” These are serious allegations but are presented without indication of how many staff, whether these claims are corroborated by documents, inspections, or other witnesses, or whether the owners dispute them. - “despite reportedly being inspected only ‘three times in ten years’.” The word “reportedly” signals some uncertainty, but there is no indication of the source of this figure (official records, media investigation, the owners themselves, etc.), nor comparison with typical inspection frequencies for similar venues. Without additional context, these points may be perceived as established facts rather than allegations or preliminary findings.

4 suggestions

Qualify the former staff claims more clearly and attribute them: e.g., “According to interviews conducted by [source, e.g., RTS or another outlet], several former staff members allege that…” and indicate whether these claims are being investigated by authorities.

Add whether investigators or prosecutors have commented on the allegations about locked extinguishers and exits, or state that this is under investigation.

Specify the source of the “three times in ten years” inspection figure (e.g., municipal records, prosecutors, or the owners’ own statements) and compare it with the legal requirement of annual inspections to show the scale of the discrepancy.

Where information is not yet confirmed, explicitly label it as such (e.g., “Investigators are examining these allegations and have not yet released their conclusions.”).

Framing effect / Narrative fallacy

Arranging facts into a story that implies inevitability or a simple cause-and-effect chain, potentially oversimplifying complex situations.

The structure of the article strongly links the 2019 near-miss video to the 2024 fire, with lines like: - “At the time, disaster was narrowly avoided. Half a decade on, however, that same warning came far too late.” - The headline: “‘Not if but when’: Swiss ski resort bar narrowly avoided fatal blaze in 2019.” This framing suggests a clear, linear narrative of a disaster that was obviously coming and ignored, which may or may not fully reflect the complexity of regulatory oversight, risk perception at the time, and changes (or lack thereof) in safety measures between 2019 and 2024.

3 suggestions

Present the 2019 incident and 2024 fire as related but distinct events: “A 2019 video shows a similar hazard at the same venue. Authorities are now examining whether safety measures were changed after that incident.”

Avoid language that implies inevitability (“not if but when”) unless clearly attributed as a quote or opinion, and label it as such: “Some critics now say the fire was ‘not a question of if but when’.”

Include any available information on whether the 2019 incident was reported to authorities or led to internal changes at the bar, to avoid implying that nothing was done without evidence.