[अर्काइभ] कसले भगायो एलसी घोटालाका आरोपीहरु ?. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden or emotionally charged wording that nudges readers toward a particular judgment.

1) "सरकारले कारबाहीमा चासो नदेखाएको भन्दै आलोचना बढेको छ।" – This is partly factual (there is criticism), but the phrase ‘चासो नदेखाएको’ is a judgmental characterization of government intent without direct evidence of intent. 2) "सरकारले नै काण्डलाई ढकाछोप गर्न खोजिएको त हैन भन्ने प्रश्न उठेको थियो।" – The wording suggests possible deliberate cover‑up by the government, framed as a question but without presenting concrete proof. 3) "सरकार उदासिन देखिएपछि" – ‘उदासिन’ (indifferent) implies a mental state or motive, not just a description of observable inaction.

3 suggestions

Replace intent-assigning phrases with neutral, observable descriptions. For example, change "सरकारले कारबाहीमा चासो नदेखाएको" to "सरकारले अहिलेसम्म कारबाही अघि नबढाएको" and then attribute the interpretation to critics: "जसका कारण विभिन्न पक्षले सरकारमाथि चासो नदेखाएको आरोप लगाएका छन्।"

For "सरकारले नै काण्डलाई ढकाछोप गर्न खोजिएको त हैन भन्ने प्रश्न उठेको थियो", clarify who raised the question and present it explicitly as an allegation: "केही सांसद र नागरिक समूहले सरकारमाथि काण्ड ढकाछोप गर्न खोजेको हुनसक्ने आशंका व्यक्त गरेका थिए" and, if available, add the government’s response.

Change "सरकार उदासिन देखिएपछि" to a more neutral formulation such as "सरकारले थप कारबाहीबारे स्पष्ट कदम नचालेपछि" and then specify: "सांसदहरुले यसलाई उदासिनता भन्दै आलोचना गरेका थिए" to separate fact from opinion.

Unsubstantiated claims

Claims or implications presented without sufficient supporting evidence in the text.

1) "दोषीलाई जोगाउने प्रयास भएको आरोप लागेको छ।" – The article mentions accusations of attempts to protect the guilty but does not detail specific actions or evidence supporting this claim. 2) "सरकारले नै काण्डलाई ढकाछोप गर्न खोजिएको त हैन भन्ने प्रश्न उठेको थियो।" – Implies a possible cover‑up by the government but does not provide concrete evidence beyond the fact that some accused became fugitives. 3) "दोषीमाथि कारबाही गर्नुभन्दा पर्दापछाडिको ‘ग्राइण्ड डिजाइन’ हरुले भगाएको आरोप लगाइएको थियो।" – Refers to a ‘behind-the-scenes grind design’ (a hidden plan) without explaining what that design was, who allegedly orchestrated it, or what evidence supports this.

3 suggestions

Whenever mentioning "दोषीलाई जोगाउने प्रयास भएको आरोप", specify who is making the allegation and on what basis. For example: "फलाना सांसद/समूहले फलाना निर्णय/ढिलाइलाई दोषी जोगाउने प्रयासको रूपमा व्याख्या गरेका छन्" and describe the concrete decisions or delays.

For the cover‑up implication, either provide specific evidence (e.g., documented instructions, leaked communications, contradictory official statements) or clearly frame it as speculation: "केही विश्लेषकले यस्तो ढिलाइलाई सम्भावित ढकाछोपको संकेतका रूपमा लिएका छन्, तर यसबारे ठोस प्रमाण सार्वजनिक भएको छैन।"

Explain or remove vague references like "पर्दापछाडिको ‘ग्राइण्ड डिजाइन’". If kept, define it: who allegedly designed it, what actions it involved, and cite sources. Otherwise, rephrase to a verifiable description such as "प्रशासनिक ढिलाइ र समन्वय अभावका कारण केही आरोपी फरार हुन सफल भएको".

Appeal to emotion

Language or framing that seeks to provoke emotional reactions (anger, suspicion, outrage) rather than focusing strictly on verifiable facts.

1) The repeated emphasis on accused being allowed to flee – "पक्राउ परेकाहरु नै फरार भएकाले एलसी काण्डमा राजनीतिक नेतृत्वमाथि प्रश्न उठिरहेको थियो" and "पक्राउ गरेर पनि फरार हुने अवसर दिइएमा सरकारको सार्वजनिक रुपमा आलोचना सुरु भएको थियो" – is factual but framed in a way that strongly invites indignation without fully exploring alternative explanations (e.g., procedural weaknesses, legal constraints). 2) The phrase "मुलुकको विदेशी मुद्रा अपलचलमा हुनेगरी भएको घोटाला काण्ड" underscores national-level harm, which is relevant, but combined with suggestions of cover‑up, it can heighten emotional response without proportional evidentiary detail on the alleged cover‑up.

3 suggestions

Balance emotionally charged descriptions with procedural context. For example, after noting that accused fled, add: "यसबारे प्रहरी र गृह मन्त्रालयले सुरक्षा व्यवस्थामा कमजोरी भएको स्वीकार/अस्वीकार गरेका छन्" (if such information exists) or acknowledge that the article does not have full procedural details.

Clarify when statements are about public sentiment rather than established fact: e.g., "यस घटनाले राजनीतिक नेतृत्वप्रति अविश्वास र आक्रोश बढेको जनप्रतिनिधि र नागरिक समूहले बताएका छन्" instead of implying that outrage is the only reasonable interpretation.

When highlighting national harm, pair it with concrete data and avoid speculative linkage to motives. For instance, keep the description of foreign currency misuse but separate it clearly from any unproven claims about intentional political shielding.

Oversimplification

Presenting a complex situation as if it has a single, straightforward cause or actor, downplaying structural or multi-factor explanations.

1) The framing of the central question "कसले भगायो एलसी घोटालाका आरोपीहरु ?" and repeated references to "भगाउने" and "जोगाउने" suggest that specific actors intentionally ‘made them flee’ or ‘protected’ them, without exploring other possible factors such as systemic weaknesses, legal loopholes, or resource constraints. 2) The narrative tends to focus on political leadership and unnamed ‘behind-the-scenes designs’ as primary explanations for lack of arrests, with little discussion of institutional capacity, judicial processes, or broader governance issues.

3 suggestions

Acknowledge multiple possible contributing factors. For example: "आरोपी फरार हुनुमा राजनीतिक हस्तक्षेप, प्रशासनिक कमजोरी, कानुनी प्रक्रिया र सुरक्षा व्यवस्थाको कमजोरीजस्ता विभिन्न कारणको भूमिका हुनसक्ने विश्लेषकहरुको भनाइ छ" and then specify what is known and what remains unclear.

Reframe the headline-style question to avoid presupposing a deliberate actor. For instance: "एलसी घोटालाका आरोपी किन फरार भए ?" or "एलसी घोटालाका आरोपी फरार हुन कसरी सफल भए ?" which invites examination of systems rather than assuming a single ‘who’ behind it.

Include, where available, perspectives from law enforcement or government explaining procedural or legal constraints, and note if they declined to comment. This helps avoid a one-cause narrative.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Giving more space or weight to one side’s claims while providing little or no space to responses or alternative perspectives.

The article extensively quotes or paraphrases: - The commission report (facts and figures), - Criticism from MPs and public actors (e.g., demands for action, accusations of shielding accused, references to ‘ग्राइण्ड डिजाइन’), - A police official noting lack of instruction. However, it does not present: - Any detailed response from the government or political leaders accused of inaction or cover‑up, - Explanations from the Ministry of Home Affairs, Attorney General, or other relevant agencies about why arrests were not made or why accused could flee, - Any comment from the accused or their legal representatives. This creates an asymmetry where allegations against the government and unnamed ‘designers’ are reported, but their side is largely absent.

3 suggestions

Include official responses from the government or relevant ministries. For example: "यसबारे तत्कालीन अर्थमन्त्री/गृह मन्त्रालयले भने यस्तो प्रतिक्रिया दिएको थियो…" or explicitly state: "सरकारका सम्बन्धित निकायसँग प्रतिक्रिया लिन खोज्दा कुनै जवाफ प्राप्त भएन" if they declined to comment.

Seek and present comments from representatives of the accused firms or individuals, or note their refusal to comment. This helps readers see that attempts at balance were made.

When summarizing MPs’ accusations (e.g., about ‘ग्राइण्ड डिजाइन’), immediately follow with either a response from those accused or a clear note that no evidence beyond the MPs’ statement has been independently verified by the outlet.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy

Arranging facts to fit a pre-existing narrative (e.g., political shielding and cover‑up) and giving more prominence to information that supports that narrative, while not equally exploring disconfirming or complicating information.

The article’s structure moves from: commission findings → large sums misused → named accused → accused fleeing → MPs’ accusations of shielding and ‘ग्राइण्ड डिजाइन’ → government ‘indifference’. This sequence strongly supports a narrative of deliberate political protection of accused individuals. There is little exploration of alternative explanations (e.g., bureaucratic inertia, legal appeals, resource constraints) or any evidence that might weaken the cover‑up hypothesis.

3 suggestions

Explicitly distinguish between what is established by the commission report (amounts, names, procedural facts) and what is interpretive or alleged (political shielding, ‘designs’). Use clear markers like "प्रतिवेदनले देखाएको तथ्य" vs. "सांसद र आलोचकहरुको व्याख्या".

Add any available information that complicates the simple ‘cover‑up’ narrative, such as partial actions taken by the government, internal disagreements, or institutional constraints, even if they do not fully exonerate the government.

Clarify the limits of the evidence: e.g., "हालसम्म सार्वजनिक कागजात र प्रतिवेदनले प्रत्यक्ष राजनीतिक ढकाछोपको प्रमाण नदेखाए पनि, ढिलासुस्ती र कारबाहीको अभावका कारण यस्तो आशंका उठेको हो" to prevent readers from assuming that allegations are proven facts.