Insights

Three readings from the whole corpus of 3650 extracted claims. Each is a live count, not an assertion — and every number below opens onto the claims behind it.

What the coverage is about
How topics are groupedTopics are grouped judgment-free. Conflict & division = communal/religion, Pakistan/security, opposition-attack. Development = health, education, infrastructure, agriculture, environment, science/tech. governance_economy is a mixed bucket and counts toward neither.

Share of the corpus by topic
47%

of all extracted claims sit in conflict & division topics — communal, Pakistan/security, opposition-attack. Every development topic combined — health, education, environment, agriculture, science, infrastructure — accounts for just 8%.

Who gets blamed
How framing is measuredFor each claim we record the framing target — the party the anchor assigns responsibility to. Blaming the people involved frames differently from blaming the system that enabled the issue. This is counted, not judged.

2590 framed claims across all anchors
2.4×

Individuals are held responsible 2.4× more often than systems & institutions — 911 claims versus 379. Below is the full distribution across the seven targets; click any to read those claims.

The coverage gap
What the coverage gap isPublic-interest topics that shape everyday life. Thin coverage here — relative to conflict topics — is the gap this section surfaces. Bars are scaled to the largest of these topics.

Public-interest topics, by claim count
agriculture rural

is the least-covered public-interest topic: 8 claims, just 0.2% of the whole corpus.