अलपत्र परेको डेढ वर्षपछि रिटेनिङ्ग वाल निर्माणको काम पुन: सुरु.

[ 31/03/2026 12:51 ] Read on ekantipur.com

Report Overview: The article is a straightforward local-infrastructure news report describing delays and resumption of a retaining wall project. It mostly uses factual, time-bound statements, quotes named officials, and provides concrete figures (dates, costs, percentages of work). There is mild bias in how responsibility is framed (stronger criticism of contractors, especially sub‑contractors) and some unsubstantiated generalization about sub‑contractors causing problems in the district. Overall, manipulative techniques are rare relative to the total number of statements.

Sides Objectivity Scores

Infrastructure Development Office / Government Authorities (95)

Main Contractor (Sisne Construction) (88)

Sub‑contractor (Peti Thekedar) (80)

Local Residents (95)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

Infrastructure Development Office / Government Authorities

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Unsubstantiated claims / Hasty generalization

Presenting a broad claim about a recurring pattern (sub‑contractors causing problems in district projects) without supporting data or specific examples.

Original text: "पेटी ठेकेदारका कारण बेलाबेलामा जिल्लामा सञ्चालित योजनामा विभिन्न किसिमका समस्या देखिँदै आएको उनको भनाइ छ ।" This sentence generalizes that, because of sub‑contractors, various kinds of problems have been occurring from time to time in district projects. It is presented as the engineer's view ("उनको भनाइ छ"), but no evidence, data, or concrete examples are provided to support this broader pattern. This risks a hasty generalization and reinforces a negative stereotype about sub‑contractors based on one case.

Add specific evidence or examples to support the broader claim, or clearly limit it to the current project. For example: "उनका अनुसार यस योजनामा पेटी ठेकेदारको लापरबाहीका कारण समस्या देखिएको छ" instead of implying a district‑wide pattern.

Attribute the statement more clearly as opinion and balance it with other perspectives. For example: "उनको व्यक्तिगत मूल्यांकनमा, केही योजनामा पेटी ठेकेदारका कारण समस्या देखिएको भए पनि यसबारे समग्र तथ्यांक उपलब्ध छैन".

Include data or an official record if available. For example: "पूर्वाधार विकास कार्यालयका अभिलेखअनुसार पछिल्ला पाँच वर्षमा पेटी ठेकेदार संलग्न १० मध्ये ३ योजनामा ढिलाइ वा प्राविधिक समस्या देखिएको छ".

Biased language / Framing bias

Using wording that implicitly assigns blame or portrays one side more negatively without equal contextualization.

Examples: 1) "पेटी ठेकेदारले विभिन्न कारण देखाउँदै झारा टार्ने मात्र काम गर्दा डेढ वर्षदेखि अलपत्र परेको थियो ।" – The phrase "झारा टार्ने मात्र काम" (only making excuses) is value‑laden and frames the sub‑contractor as evasive without presenting their detailed explanation. 2) "२०८० मा सम्पन्न हुने योजना ठेकेदारले लापरबाही गर्दा दुई पटक म्याद थप्नु परेको छ ।" – The word "लापरबाही" (negligence) is a strong negative characterization. It is attributed to the official, but no specific contractual or technical evidence is cited beyond delay itself.

Replace evaluative phrases with more neutral descriptions of actions and facts. For example: "पेटी ठेकेदारले विभिन्न कारण देखाउँदै काम अघि बढाउन सकेनन्" instead of "झारा टार्ने मात्र काम".

Clarify that terms like "लापरबाही" are allegations or assessments by a specific source, and, where possible, add the contractor’s response. For example: "कार्यालयका प्रमुख थापाको भनाइमा, ठेकेदारको लापरबाहीका कारण..." and then add: "यसबारे ठेकेदार पक्षले भने प्राविधिक समस्या र डिजाईन परिवर्तनका कारण ढिलाइ भएको दाबी गरेको छ" if such a response exists.

Provide more concrete, verifiable details instead of evaluative labels. For example: "सम्झौतामा तोकिएको म्यादभित्र ८० प्रतिशत काम बाँकी रहेकाले कार्यालयले यसलाई सम्झौता उल्लङ्घन मानेको छ" rather than simply calling it negligence.

Unbalanced reporting / Selective use of sources

Relying mainly on one side’s officials and not providing the criticized party’s perspective.

Throughout the article, the main quoted sources are government officials: "पूर्वाधार विकास कार्यालय सल्यानका प्रमुख नविन कुमार थापा" and "इन्जिनियर भरत कुमार शर्मा". The main contractor (सिस्ने कन्ट्रक्सन) and the sub‑contractor are criticized (for delay, negligence, making excuses) but are not quoted or given space to explain their side (e.g., reasons for delay, design issues, financial or logistical constraints). This creates an imbalance in how responsibility and context are presented.

Include direct quotes or at least a summarized response from the main contractor and/or sub‑contractor. For example: "यसबारे सिस्ने कन्ट्रक्सनका प्रतिनिधि फलानाले भने, ‘डिजाईन परिवर्तन र नदीको बहावका कारण काममा ढिलाइ भयो’".

If the contractors declined to comment or could not be reached, state this explicitly to show an attempt at balance: "ठेकेदार पक्षसँग धारणा लिन खोज्दा सम्पर्क हुन सकेन" or "ठेकेदारले यसबारे बोल्न नमानेका छन्".

Clarify which assessments are from officials and which are independently verified facts, so readers can distinguish between official narrative and confirmed information.

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.