गोरखाका दुवै क्षेत्रमा प्रलोपाले कांग्रेस उम्मेदवारलाई सघाउने. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting mainly one perspective or one set of actors without proportionate representation of other relevant sides.

The article focuses almost entirely on प्रलोपा leaders explaining their decision to support कांग्रेस candidates: - “दुई पार्टीबीच विभिन्न चरणमा भएको छलफलबाट कांग्रेस उम्मेदवारलाई सघाउने गरी पार्टी अघि बढेको प्रलोपाका जिल्ला अध्यक्ष नारायण खत्रीले बताए ।” - “हाम्रा उम्मेदवार नभएको अवस्थामा प्रत्यक्षतर्फ अहिलेको परिस्थितिमा कांग्रेस उम्मेदवार उपयुक्त हुने देखेर छलफल सकारात्मक तवरले अघि बढाएका हौं ।” There is no reaction or comment from कांग्रेस पक्ष, nor from अन्य दल/उम्मेदवार who may be affected by this alliance, and no independent contextual analysis (e.g., what this means for electoral competition in the district). This makes the piece structurally tilted toward प्रलोपा’s self-presentation and its justification for supporting कांग्रेस.

3 suggestions

Include a brief reaction or comment from a Nepali Congress representative in Gorkha about this support (e.g., how they view the alliance, whether there were conditions, etc.).

Add at least one sentence summarizing how other major parties or candidates in Gorkha (e.g., CPN-UML, Maoist Centre, etc., if relevant) might be affected or how they have responded, if at all.

Provide minimal neutral context on the electoral landscape in Gorkha (e.g., past vote shares or main competitors) to show how this cooperation fits into a broader picture, without advocating for any side.

Confirmation bias / Narrative fallacy (mild)

Presenting one side’s reasoning as if it were the only or self-evident explanation, reinforcing their narrative without exploring alternatives.

The justification for supporting Congress is presented only through प्रलोपा leaders’ framing: - “हाम्रा उम्मेदवार नभएको अवस्थामा प्रत्यक्षतर्फ अहिलेको परिस्थितिमा कांग्रेस उम्मेदवार उपयुक्त हुने देखेर छलफल सकारात्मक तवरले अघि बढाएका हौं ।” This is a party’s subjective assessment (‘उपयुक्त हुने देखेर’), but the article does not clarify that this is only their view, nor does it mention any alternative strategic options they considered (e.g., supporting another party, staying neutral, or encouraging invalid/blank votes). The narrative implicitly suggests that supporting Congress is the natural or obvious choice in the current situation.

3 suggestions

Explicitly mark such statements as subjective party views, e.g., by adding clarifiers like “प्रलोपाका नेताहरूको दाबी अनुसार” or “प्रलोपाको मूल्यांकनमा”.

Briefly mention that other options existed (e.g., supporting other parties or remaining neutral) and that प्रलोपा chose Congress among these, without judging whether that choice is right or wrong.

If available, add a short, neutral analytical sentence such as: “अन्य दलहरूसँग पनि छलफल भए पनि अन्ततः प्रलोपा नेतृत्वले कांग्रेसलाई समर्थन गर्ने निर्णय गरेको हो,” to show that this is one of several possible paths, not an inevitable one.