सुनसरी-१ मा विकासका एजेन्डासहित २६ उम्मेदवार प्रतिस्पर्धामा. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Appeal to emotion

Using emotionally charged references to suffering or long-standing problems to elicit sympathy and support.

«सुनसरी १ जहिल्यै आफ्नो प्राथमिकतामा रहेको भन्दै ३०, ४० वर्षदेखिको जनताका पीडालाई संसद र सरकारमा पुर्याउने बताउँदै भोट मागिरहेकी छन् ।» This directly relays the candidate’s emotional framing of “३०, ४० वर्षदेखिको जनताका पीडा” as a reason to vote for her, without clarifying that this is campaign rhetoric and without any independent context.

3 suggestions

Explicitly attribute the emotional framing as the candidate’s claim, e.g., «उनले आफ्नो भनाइमा सुनसरी–१ का जनताले ३०–४० वर्षदेखि भोग्दै आएको पीडा समाधान गर्ने वाचा गर्दै भोट मागिन् भन्ने बताइन्» instead of presenting it as an unqualified description.

Add neutral context or data about the constituency’s long-standing issues (poverty, infrastructure, services) to balance the emotional appeal with factual information.

Clarify that this is part of standard campaign messaging, e.g., «निर्वाचन प्रचारका क्रममा उनले…» to signal to readers that this is persuasive speech, not verified fact.

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting claims or promises without evidence, data, or critical context.

1) «अघिल्लो निर्वाचनमा पाएको भन्दा बढी मत ल्याएर आसन्न निर्वाचन जित्ने उनले दाबी गरिन् ।» This is a prediction of victory based solely on the candidate’s own assertion, with no polling data or analysis. 2) «समावेशी विकास र सबै समुदायको समान सहभागिता सुनिश्चित गर्दै क्षेत्रको समग्र विकासका लागि आफू प्रतिबद्ध रहेको बताएका छन् ।» This is a broad promise of commitment to inclusive development and equal participation, reported without any question, plan details, or track record.

3 suggestions

Clearly mark such statements as personal claims or promises, e.g., «उनको दाबी अनुसार…» or «उनले वाचा गरे अनुसार…» rather than implying likelihood.

Where possible, add independent information: past vote margins, polling, or expert commentary to contextualize the victory claim.

For development promises, briefly note whether the candidate has presented any concrete plan, timeline, or prior record, e.g., «तर उनले यसका लागि विस्तृत कार्ययोजना सार्वजनिक गरेका छैनन्/गरेका छन्…».

Unbalanced reporting

Providing more detail or relatively favorable space to some actors while giving only minimal, list-like coverage to others.

The first two candidates receive narrative description of their activities and agendas: - Door-to-door campaigning, focus on long-standing public suffering, and claim of winning with more votes. - Detailed agenda of Sanjay Rai: «भौतिक पूर्वाधार विकास, गुणस्तरीय स्वास्थ्य सेवा विस्तार, शिक्षा क्षेत्रको सुधार, दीर्घकालीन खानेपानी समस्या समाधान तथा पहिचान र अधिकारका मुद्दा… समावेशी विकास…» In contrast, the remaining 24 candidates are mostly listed by name and party only, with no mention of their agendas, activities, or positions.

3 suggestions

Provide at least one sentence summarizing the main agenda or campaign focus of the other major candidates, not just their names and parties.

Clarify selection criteria, e.g., «ठूला दलका उम्मेदवारहरूका मुख्य एजेन्डा यसप्रकार छन्…» so readers understand why only some are described in detail.

If space is limited, state that only a subset is covered and that others also have agendas not detailed here, to signal incompleteness rather than implying irrelevance.

Framing effect

Presenting information in a way that subtly shapes perception through emphasis and structure rather than explicit opinion.

The article opens with the first candidate’s confidence and emotional appeal, then moves to Sanjay Rai’s detailed development agenda, and only afterward lists other candidates in a compressed, name-only format. This ordering and level of detail can frame the first two as the only serious or agenda-driven contenders, even though this is not explicitly stated.

3 suggestions

Reorder or structure the article with a neutral overview first (e.g., total candidates, main parties), then present each major candidate’s agenda in a similar format.

Use parallel structure when describing candidates (e.g., each gets a short paragraph with agenda, background, and key promises) to reduce framing bias.

Explicitly note that the article is providing only brief snapshots and that all 26 candidates are formally in the race, to avoid implying that others are insignificant.