सौर्य विमान दुर्घटनामा परिवार गुमाएका खतिवडाको रिटमा सर्वोच्चद्वारा कारण देखाउ आदेश. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged details or language that can sway readers’ feelings more than their reasoning.

The article gives detailed, tragic personal information about the victims: “एकै परिवारका तीन सदस्य गुमाएका…”, “४ वर्षका अधिराज शर्मा, प्रिजा खतिवडा र मनुराज शर्माको घटनास्थलमै मृत्यु… यी तीनै जना… ५५ वर्षीय प्रकाश खतिवडाका छोरी, नाति र ज्वाइँ हुन्।” While such details are relevant, they are presented without balancing context (e.g., about the technical or investigative status of the crash), which can strongly prime sympathy for the petitioner and make his later claims (‘सामूहिक हत्या’, ‘आर्थिक चलखेल’) feel more credible by emotional association rather than evidence.

3 suggestions

Clarify the journalistic purpose of the personal details, e.g., “पीडित परिवारको पृष्ठभूमि यसप्रकार छ, जसले रिट दायर गर्ने निर्णयमा प्रभाव पारेको बताइन्छ।”

Add neutral, factual context about the investigation status or official findings so far, if any, to balance the emotional impact: “उक्त दुर्घटनाबारे यसअघि प्रारम्भिक/अन्तिम प्रतिवेदन सार्वजनिक भइसकेको छैन/भइसकेको छ, जसमा … उल्लेख गरिएको छ।”

Avoid unnecessary repetition of the familial tragedy; state it once clearly and then focus on the legal and procedural aspects of the case.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting serious allegations without evidence, context, or indication of their current status (e.g., under investigation, denied, unproven).

“खतिवडाले उक्त दुर्घटना ‘सामूहिक हत्या’ भएको आरोप लगाउँदै उच्चस्तरीय न्यायिक छानबिनको मागसहित सर्वोच्च अदालतमा रिट दायर गरेका हुन्। साथै, सौर्य एयरलायन्समाथि लगाइएको निलम्बन फुकुवा तथा एयर अपरेटर सर्टिफिकेट (एओसी) नवीकरणमा आर्थिक चलखेल भएको दाबीसमेत उनले गरेका छन्।” These are extremely serious accusations (mass murder, economic collusion) but the article does not indicate whether there is any supporting evidence, whether authorities or Saurya Airlines have responded, or what the current official position is.

3 suggestions

Explicitly mark these as unproven allegations and attribute them clearly: “उनको दाबी अनुसार…”, “उनी भन्छन् कि…”, and add a line such as “यी आरोपहरू हालसम्म प्रमाणित भएका छैनन्।”

Include any available response or denial from Saurya Airlines, the government, or regulators, or state that they could not be reached / declined to comment: “यसबारे सौर्य एयरलायन्स/नेपाल नागरिक उड्डयन प्राधिकरणको धारणा लिने प्रयास गरिएको थियो तर…।”

Provide context on whether any official investigation has been opened into these specific allegations of ‘आर्थिक चलखेल’ or ‘सामूहिक हत्या’, or clearly state that no such investigation has yet confirmed these claims.

Biased language / Sensationalism (mild, via quoted term)

Use or repetition of highly charged terms that can sensationalize the issue, even when quoted from a source.

The phrase “उक्त दुर्घटना ‘सामूहिक हत्या’ भएको आरोप” repeats a very strong, criminal characterization of the crash. Although it is correctly attributed to the petitioner, the article does not provide any balancing language (e.g., that authorities have treated it as an accident so far, or that no court has ruled it a homicide), which can give the sensational term disproportionate weight.

3 suggestions

Immediately contextualize the term: “उनले दुर्घटनालाई ‘सामूहिक हत्या’ को संज्ञा दिएका छन्, यद्यपि सरकारी निकायहरूले यसलाई हालसम्म विमान दुर्घटना (दुर्घटना) को रूपमा वर्गीकृत गरेका छन्।”

Avoid repeating the charged label in headlines or leads without clear attribution; ensure the headline reflects the procedural news (court order) rather than the most sensational allegation.

If space allows, briefly mention how such allegations differ legally from standard accident investigations, to reduce the impression that the label is an established fact.

Omission of key information / Unbalanced reporting

Leaving out relevant perspectives or context that would help readers evaluate the claims more fairly.

The article presents only the petitioner’s side (his loss, his allegations, his legal move) and the procedural step by the Supreme Court. It does not include any comment or prior position from: (1) Saurya Airlines, (2) the Nepal government or CAAN, or (3) any existing investigation reports or findings about the crash. This omission makes the piece tilt toward the petitioner’s framing, even if unintentionally.

3 suggestions

Add a short paragraph summarizing any official investigation status or previous findings about the crash, if available: “यसअघि प्रारम्भिक/अन्तिम प्रतिवेदनले दुर्घटनाको कारण… बताएको थियो/छानबिन जारी छ।”

Include reactions or no‑comment statements from Saurya Airlines and the named government bodies, or explicitly state that they could not be reached: “सम्बन्धित निकायसँग सम्पर्क गर्दा…।”

Clarify that the Supreme Court has only issued a ‘कारण देखाउ आदेश’ and has not yet ruled on the merits of the allegations, to prevent readers from inferring that the court endorses the claims.

Framing effect

Structuring information in a way that emphasizes one interpretation over others, influencing perception without changing the underlying facts.

The article’s structure moves from (1) the petitioner’s severe personal loss, to (2) the Supreme Court’s action, to (3) the petitioner’s strongest allegations. This sequence can frame the allegations as a natural, almost self‑evident response to tragedy, rather than as claims that still require evidence and adjudication.

3 suggestions

Reorder slightly to emphasize the procedural nature first: start with the Supreme Court’s ‘कारण देखाउ आदेश’ and its legal meaning, then provide background on the crash, and only then describe the petitioner’s allegations.

Explicitly separate fact and claim with transitional phrases: “तथ्यगत रूपमा घटेको घटना यसप्रकार छ…”, “रिट निवेदनमा उनले राखेका मुख्य दाबीहरू यसप्रकार छन्…।”

Add a closing line reminding readers of the current status: “रिट हाल विचाराधीन अवस्थामा रहेको छ र अदालतले दुवै पक्षको जवाफ सुनेर मात्र निर्णय गर्नेछ।”