Khamenei’s Secret ‘FINISH RIOTS’ Blueprint Leaked; How IRGC Was Ordered To Crush Revolt With Force. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Misleading headlines

Using a headline that does not match or is only loosely related to the actual content, often to attract clicks or provoke strong reactions.

Headline: "Khamenei’s Secret ‘FINISH RIOTS’ Blueprint Leaked; How IRGC Was Ordered To Crush Revolt With Force" Body: Content is about NDA MPs felicitating Prime Minister Narendra Modi for an India-US trade agreement, with no mention of Khamenei, IRGC, riots, or any leaked blueprint.

3 suggestions

Change the headline to accurately reflect the content, e.g., "NDA MPs Felicitate PM Modi Over India-US Trade Agreement at Parliamentary Party Meeting".

Remove any references to Khamenei, IRGC, or riots from the title unless the article is actually about those topics and the body is updated accordingly.

Ensure future headlines are written after the article content is finalized, to avoid mismatch and clickbait.

Clickbait

Using sensational or shocking titles to attract attention and clicks, often without delivering on the promise in the content.

The title suggests a dramatic, secret security blueprint about crushing riots in Iran, which is highly sensational and unrelated to the actual content about a trade agreement and a parliamentary meeting.

3 suggestions

Use a straightforward, descriptive headline that matches the article’s subject matter.

Avoid emotionally charged words like "Secret", "FINISH RIOTS", and "Crush Revolt With Force" unless they are directly and accurately supported by the article.

Align thumbnail text, tags, and social media captions with the real topic (India-US trade deal) instead of unrelated, more sensational geopolitical themes.

Biased language

Using value-laden or promotional wording that implicitly endorses one side or viewpoint.

Phrases such as: - "felicitated Prime Minister Narendra Modi for the India-US trade agreement" - "praised the deal as a major diplomatic and economic achievement" - "strengthens bilateral ties" - "would boost trade, investment, and job creation while enhancing India’s global standing" - "strong support from NDA leaders, who credited the government’s consistent foreign policy and leadership for securing the agreement." These are all framed positively and uncritically, with no neutral qualifiers or alternative views.

3 suggestions

Rephrase to neutral descriptions, e.g., "NDA MPs expressed support for Prime Minister Narendra Modi following the announcement of the India-US trade agreement."

Attribute value judgments clearly and avoid endorsing them, e.g., "Leaders described the deal as a major diplomatic and economic achievement" instead of stating it as fact.

Include neutral or technical language about the agreement’s terms rather than broad, promotional claims about its greatness.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting assertions as facts without evidence, data, or sourcing.

Statements such as: - "the agreement would boost trade, investment, and job creation while enhancing India’s global standing." - "a major diplomatic and economic achievement that strengthens bilateral ties" are presented as outcomes but no figures, clauses of the agreement, expert analysis, or independent sources are provided to support these claims.

3 suggestions

Add specific data or projections from credible sources (e.g., government documents, trade bodies, independent economists) to support claims about trade, investment, and jobs.

Qualify the statements as expectations or opinions, e.g., "MPs said they expect the agreement to boost trade..." or "According to government estimates, the agreement could..."

Include any known caveats or uncertainties, such as implementation challenges or sectors that may be adversely affected.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important context or countervailing information that would allow readers to form a balanced view.

The article does not mention: - Any details of the India-US trade agreement (key provisions, sectors affected, concessions by either side). - Any criticism or concerns from opposition parties, trade unions, industry groups, or experts. - Potential downsides, risks, or contested aspects of the deal. It only reports praise from NDA MPs and leaders.

3 suggestions

Include a brief summary of the main terms of the trade agreement and what each side (India and the US) gains or concedes.

Add reactions from opposition parties or independent experts, including any criticisms or concerns about the agreement.

Mention any known debates (e.g., impact on farmers, small industries, tariffs, regulatory standards) to provide a fuller picture.

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting only one side’s perspective, especially in a political or contested policy context.

Only NDA MPs and leaders are quoted or paraphrased, and all are supportive. There is no mention of opposition views, neutral expert analysis, or public reaction. The narrative is entirely favorable to the government.

3 suggestions

Include at least one or two critical or skeptical viewpoints from opposition parties or policy experts.

Present neutral analysis of both potential benefits and potential drawbacks of the agreement.

Clearly distinguish between what government or party members claim and what independent assessments say.

Appeal to authority

Using the status or position of individuals or groups as the main justification for a claim, rather than evidence.

The article relies on the authority of "NDA MPs", "Leaders", and "the Prime Minister" to validate the trade agreement as a "major diplomatic and economic achievement" and as something that "would boost trade, investment, and job creation" without providing independent evidence.

3 suggestions

Support claims with data, studies, or independent expert commentary instead of relying solely on statements from political leaders.

Clarify that these are the views of NDA MPs and leaders, not established facts, e.g., "NDA leaders argued that..."

Balance official statements with external analysis from non-partisan institutions.

Confirmation bias / Echo chamber

Presenting only information that confirms a particular group’s positive view, reinforcing a one-sided narrative.

The article only includes positive reactions from within the NDA, creating an internal echo chamber of praise for the agreement and the Prime Minister’s leadership, with no external or dissenting input.

3 suggestions

Seek and include perspectives from outside the ruling coalition, such as opposition parties, independent economists, or affected stakeholders.

Explicitly note if some groups have raised concerns or if debate is ongoing.

Avoid framing internal party praise as if it represents a unanimous national or expert consensus.

Narrative fallacy

Constructing a simple, coherent story that attributes complex outcomes to a single cause or actor, often oversimplifying reality.

The article suggests a neat story: consistent foreign policy and strong leadership by the government directly led to a major trade achievement that will boost growth and global standing. It omits the complexity of trade negotiations, multiple actors, and possible trade-offs.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge the complexity of trade negotiations, including the roles of negotiators, bureaucrats, and the US side.

Mention that outcomes depend on implementation, global economic conditions, and sectoral responses, not just leadership.

Avoid implying a single-cause explanation; instead, describe the agreement as the result of a broader process and multiple factors.