‘Trump Would Never…’: PM Carney Brags About Canada-NATO Alliance After Big Rutte Insult. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Anonymous sources

Use of unnamed or vaguely described sources, which can limit verifiability and accountability.

The article states: "According to police sources, Chetan initially claimed that the idea to eliminate Ketan was Siya’s..." and "Investigators say both accounts began to fall apart when confronted with digital evidence..." without naming specific officials or providing on-record statements.

3 suggestions

Replace vague attributions like "according to police sources" with specific, on-record attribution, e.g., "according to Pune Police Commissioner [Name]" or an official written statement.

Clarify whether the information comes from official documents (e.g., FIR, charge sheet, press briefing) rather than unnamed individuals.

If anonymity is necessary, briefly explain why (e.g., "a senior officer who requested anonymity because the investigation is ongoing").

Omission of key information

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

The article reports that "investigators say the evidence points to a pre-planned conspiracy involving both" and that digital evidence and CCTV contradict the accused, but it does not specify what that evidence shows, what stage the case is at (arrest, charge, trial), or whether the accused have legal representation or have responded through counsel.

3 suggestions

Briefly describe, in neutral terms, what the digital evidence and CCTV footage allegedly show, while noting that these are allegations, not proven facts.

State the procedural status of the case (e.g., "both have been arrested and remanded to police custody" or "the case is currently under investigation; no charges have yet been proven in court").

Indicate whether the accused or their lawyers were contacted for comment and, if so, summarize their response; if not, explicitly note that they could not be reached or declined to comment.

Unbalanced reporting

Giving more weight or credibility to one side’s account without clearly signaling that the matter is unresolved.

The article presents the accused blaming each other but then concludes: "Investigators say both accounts began to fall apart when confronted with digital evidence, CCTV footage, and call records." This gives more weight to the police narrative without clarifying that these are still investigative claims and not court-verified findings.

3 suggestions

Add language that clearly indicates the provisional nature of the investigators’ claims, such as "police allege" or "according to the ongoing investigation, which has not yet been tested in court."

Include a brief reminder that the accused are presumed innocent until proven guilty.

If available, mention any legal or independent oversight (e.g., court orders, magistrate observations) to balance reliance on the police narrative.

Appeal to authority

Relying on the statements of authorities as if they are definitive proof, without acknowledging that they may be contested.

The line "Investigators say the evidence points to a pre-planned conspiracy involving both" implicitly invites readers to accept the investigators’ interpretation as fact, even though the case has not been adjudicated.

3 suggestions

Qualify such statements with clear attribution and legal context, e.g., "Police allege that the evidence points to..." instead of stating it as an uncontested conclusion.

Add a sentence noting that the evidence and allegations will be examined in court, where the defense can challenge them.

Avoid phrasing that suggests the investigators’ interpretation is final; emphasize that it is one side’s account in an ongoing legal process.