नेकपा बहुमतका महासचिव धर्मेन्द्र बाँस्तोला पक्राउ. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s claims or framing more fully than the other side, without equivalent opportunity for response or context.

The article quotes only the police explanation: ‘चुनावका बेला जनतामा डर, त्रास फैलाएर सार्वज्निक सेवा प्रवाहमा असर पुर्याएकाले अनुसन्धानका लागि नियन्त्रणमा लिएका हौं,’ खड्काले भने, ‘उहाँहरुलाई जिल्ला प्रहरी परिसर, काठमाडौंसमक्ष मुद्दा चलाउने गरी बुझाउँछौं ।’ There is no quote or paraphrased response from धर्मेन्द्र बाँस्तोला, विष्णुप्रसाद तिम्सिना, their lawyers, or the party, nor any independent description of what they actually did beyond calling a strike.

3 suggestions

Add the arrested side’s perspective, for example: ‘यस विषयमा नेपाल कम्युनिस्ट पार्टी (बहुमत) का नेताहरूको धारणा लिन खोज्दा उनीहरूले भने…’ and include their explanation or denial if available.

Clarify that the description of ‘डर, त्रास फैलाएर’ is an allegation by police, e.g. ‘प्रहरीको दाबी अनुसार’ or ‘प्रहरीले आरोप लगाएको छ कि…’ rather than stating it as an uncontested fact.

Include any available independent or contextual information about the strike’s conduct (e.g., reports of incidents, disruptions, or lack thereof) to help readers assess the police claim.

Appeal to authority

Relying on statements from authorities as if they are definitive truth, without scrutiny or alternative viewpoints.

The article’s core explanation of why the arrests occurred is entirely through SSP Santosh Khadka’s statement. His characterization of the leaders as spreading ‘डर, त्रास’ and affecting public services is presented without challenge, corroboration, or alternative accounts.

3 suggestions

Explicitly attribute evaluative claims to the speaker, e.g. ‘एसएसपी खड्काको दाबी अनुसार…’ and avoid presenting them as established fact.

Seek and include corroborating evidence (e.g., reports of specific incidents, complaints, or disruptions) or note if such evidence was not independently verified.

Balance the authority’s statement with legal or rights-based context (e.g., what laws are allegedly violated, what protections exist for protest/strike) and, if possible, expert or legal commentary.

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article does not specify: - What concrete actions, beyond calling a strike, are alleged to have created ‘डर, त्रास’. - Under which legal provisions they were arrested or what specific charges may be filed. - Whether any incidents or complaints were reported during the strike. This omission makes it hard to evaluate the seriousness or legitimacy of the police’s claims.

3 suggestions

Add information on the legal basis for the arrest (e.g., relevant sections of law or regulations invoked by police).

Describe any specific incidents, if reported, that support the claim of spreading fear or disrupting public services, or clearly state that police have not detailed such incidents.

Clarify the broader context of political strikes and election-related protests (e.g., whether similar actions by other groups have led to arrests) to situate this event within a pattern or lack thereof.