'Former LTTE combatants, army personnel working together to clear Sri Lanka’s mines': Ziggy Garewal. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one actor’s perspective (MAG) without including other relevant viewpoints, even when they are directly referenced (government, donors, affected communities).

Throughout the interview, only the MAG country director is quoted. Examples: 1) On the 2028 mine-free target: "It is not realistic, and even the Sri Lankan government is aware of it. They are going to apply for an extension... We think maybe another six or seven years are needed to clear..." 2) On donor commitment and funding cuts: "Donors in Sri Lanka are very committed... They have been funding since 2002-2003... The UK, for example—a lot of the funding is spent on supporting refugees and internally displaced people in other countries. Now they also want to use that money to house refugees in the UK." 3) On relations with government and ex-combatants: "We have very good cooperation. We come under the supervision of the National Mine Action Centre... We have even got ex-army people working with us. We find that now the relationship between them is more cordial—it's better." In all these cases, only MAG’s interpretation is provided. No direct statements or data from the Sri Lankan government, donors, ex-combatants, local communities, or independent analysts are included to corroborate or nuance these claims.

5 suggestions

Include direct comments or official statements from the Sri Lankan government (e.g., National Mine Action Centre) on the 2028 target, the planned extension, and their own assessment of timelines and constraints.

Add donor-side perspectives (e.g., from UK, Japan, Australia, US, Switzerland) explaining their funding priorities, reasons for reductions, and how they view Sri Lanka’s demining needs relative to other crises.

Incorporate voices from affected communities (returnees, farmers, local leaders) on the impact of demining, their awareness of mine risks, and their views on the pace and priorities of clearance.

Include at least one independent expert or another demining operator (e.g., HALO Trust, DASH, SHARP) to comment on timelines, operational challenges, and staff transition, to show whether MAG’s views are broadly shared or contested.

Clarify in the introduction or conclusion that this is a single-source interview representing MAG’s perspective, and explicitly note that other stakeholders may have differing views.

Appeal to authority

Relying heavily on the authority and expertise of a single figure (the MAG country director) as the primary basis for multiple evaluative claims, without additional evidence or corroboration.

The article consistently presents evaluative or predictive statements solely on the authority of the interviewee: 1) On the realism of the 2028 target: "It is not realistic, and even the Sri Lankan government is aware of it... We think maybe another six or seven years are needed to clear..." 2) On donor commitment: "Donors in Sri Lanka are very committed... So they will most probably stay on, but the amounts will go down." 3) On social relations between former combatants and ex-army personnel: "We find that now the relationship between them is more cordial—it's better. Obviously, as time goes on, people get over some of the harshness of the conflict. We find they are all working together." These are plausible and come from a relevant expert, but they are not supported with independent data, surveys, or corroborating sources. The reader is asked to accept them largely because of the interviewee’s position.

4 suggestions

Where possible, add supporting data or references (e.g., official clearance statistics, Article 5 reports, NMAC documents) to back up claims about timelines and remaining contaminated areas.

Include brief references to independent reports (UN, ICRC, other NGOs, academic studies) on donor trends, funding levels, and the impact of global crises on humanitarian mine action funding.

For social and relational claims (e.g., ex-LTTE and ex-army working together), add either anonymized quotes from deminers themselves or reference to any surveys or qualitative studies that support this observation.

Explicitly frame some statements as the interviewee’s opinion or assessment (e.g., “In MAG’s assessment…” or “From our experience in the field…”) to distinguish them from established facts.

Oversimplification

Reducing complex social or political dynamics to brief, unnuanced statements that may gloss over remaining tensions or differing experiences.

The article touches on sensitive post-conflict dynamics but treats them in a simplified way: 1) On relations between ex-LTTE combatants and ex-army personnel: "We find that now the relationship between them is more cordial—it's better. Obviously, as time goes on, people get over some of the harshness of the conflict. We find they are all working together." This suggests a broadly resolved relationship without acknowledging that experiences may vary, that some tensions may persist, or that reconciliation is uneven. 2) On public awareness in the north vs. south: "If you come to the south of Sri Lanka, people do not even know there are mines in the country, let alone the training." This is a strong generalization about awareness levels in the south, presented without nuance or data, and may not reflect variations within regions.

4 suggestions

Qualify broad statements about reconciliation with language that acknowledges variation, such as: “In many of our teams we see more cordial relationships… although experiences can differ between individuals and communities.”

Add a brief note that post-conflict relations and reconciliation are complex and that MAG’s observations are limited to its own staff and operational areas.

For claims about public awareness (e.g., in the south), either provide supporting survey data or soften the claim: “In our experience, awareness of mines is much lower in the south compared to the north.”

Where possible, include examples that show diversity of experience (e.g., different communities, age groups, or regions) rather than implying uniform attitudes.