CoChat
Sign Up
Cited by 0Media Studies and CommunicationJournalism and Media StudiesMisinformation and Its Impacts

Sensational Headlines, Engagement, and Credibility in Nepal’s Online News

Open access
Dahal, Sudhamshu·2025·Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies
DOI 10.3126/njdrs.v22i1.99390
Open this paper in CoChat — free accountOpen PDF

Abstract

This study examines whether sensational headlines in Nepal’s online news ecosystem generate short-term audience engagement while weakening perceived credibility. A convergent cross-methods design was used. The quantitative component comprised a content analysis of 300 Facebook-posted headlines from three prominent Nepali news portals - OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times - collected between June 15 and July 15, 2024. Headlines were coded as sensational or non-sensational using indicators of emotional language, hyperbole, provocative framing, and curiosity-gap construction. Visible Facebook engagement indicators - likes, shares, and comments - were descriptively compared across headline types. The audience component consisted of a purposive survey of 81 Nepali online news consumers on news-use habits, trust perceptions, and coping practices. Sensational headlines constituted 43% of the sampled posts, with outlet-level variation from 36% to 52%. Sensational headlines received higher mean engagement than non-sensational headlines, especially for comments; however, survey responses indicated credibility costs, including skepticism, cross-checking, and avoidance of repeatedly sensational outlets. The findings support attention-economy and platform-diffusion arguments that emotionally salient headlines can attract attention in algorithmic feeds, but they also show that repeated sensationalism may impose a long-term trust penalty. For Nepali newsrooms, sustainable digital journalism requires balancing headline visibility with accuracy, transparency, and audience trust.

AI snapshot

Written from the paper’s full text.

TL;DR

This study examines whether sensational headlines in Nepal’s online news generate short-term Facebook engagement while weakening perceived credibility. It finds that sensational headlines were common and received modestly higher visible engagement, but survey respondents associated repeated sensationalism with skepticism, cross-checking, and avoidance.

Key findings

  • Across 300 Facebook-posted headlines from OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times, 129 headlines (43%) were coded as sensational; outlet-level prevalence ranged from 36% to 52% (OnlineKhabar 52%, The Himalayan Times 41%, The Kathmandu Post 36%).
  • Sensational headlines averaged 256 likes, 45 shares, and 23 comments, compared with 212 likes, 38 shares, and 18 comments for non-sensational headlines, i.e. relative differences of +20.8% likes, +18.4% shares, and +27.8% comments.
  • Survey responses from 81 Nepali online news consumers indicated that sensational headlines can attract attention and clicking, but repeated sensational framing was associated with skepticism, annoyance, concern about exaggeration, lower trust, cross-checking, source comparison, and avoidance or unfollowing of repeatedly sensational outlets.
  • The paper concludes that sensational headlines may provide short-term engagement gains, but these gains do not compensate for potential long-term credibility erosion when sensationalism becomes routine.

Methods

  • Convergent cross-methods design combining quantitative content analysis of Facebook-posted news headlines with a purposive survey of online news consumers.
  • Content analysis sample: 300 headlines, 100 each from OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times, collected June 15–July 15, 2024; headlines were coded as sensational if they showed emotional/evaluative language, hyperbole, provocative framing, forward-reference/curiosity-gap construction, or ambiguous/suggestive phrasing.
  • Survey sample: 81 Nepali internet users who reported consuming online news, recruited purposively; analysis compared prevalence and mean likes/shares/comments by headline type and thematically summarized survey responses on trust, credibility, and coping practices.

Limitations

  • The paper states the headline sample covers only one month, three outlets, and Facebook posts only; the survey sample is small and purposive; engagement metrics are observational and can be shaped by algorithms, timing, topic salience, outlet size, and external events; and the coding procedure lacks a reported intercoder reliability coefficient.
  • The paper also states it did not conduct a full topic-controlled model, so topic-specific differences in tolerance for sensationalism remain unexamined.
  • Evident from the text: because the survey uses non-probability sampling and the content analysis is a structured snapshot rather than a representative sample, findings are exploratory and should not be read as population-level or causal estimates.

Model-written summary. Check it against the paper before relying on it.

Integrity signals

Registry

Crossref · 10.3126/njdrs.v22i1.99390

Cites

1 citation errors · 0 not checkable

Statistics

Nothing to recompute.

Claims the paper makes

11 of 23 cited sources checked · 8 supported · 0 flagged · accuracy not yet measured

  • Interpretationcitation
    § Results and Discussion

    Headline sensationalism may be topic-sensitive; audience tolerance for click-oriented framing differs by topic.

    “The findings further suggest that headline sensationalism may be topic-sensitive.Although this study sampled across politics, business, society, and entertainment, it did not conduct a full topic-controlled model.Nevertheless, prior research indicates that audience tolerance for click-oriented framing differs by topic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sharma et al. (2022) source

      The Discussion says rare suicide events receive more media attention because news professionals may consider them more sensational. It does not address headline framing or whether audiences tolerate click-oriented headlines differently across topics (searched: audience tolerance, click-oriented framing, and topic differences). (LLM, conf=0.76)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.
  • Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Some respondents reported that sensational headlines attract attention and occasionally lead them to click, especially when the topic appears urgent, surprising, or socially relevant.

    “Some respondents reported that sensational headlines attract attention and occasionally lead them to click, especially when the topic appears urgent, surprising, or socially relevant.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.
  • Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The survey suggests that many users already engage in informal verification through cross-checking and source comparison.

    “The survey suggests that many users already engage in informal verification through cross-checking and source comparison.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.
  • Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Survey responses indicated credibility costs of sensational headlines, including skepticism, cross-checking, and avoidance of repeatedly sensational outlets.

    “Sensational headlines received higher mean engagement than non-sensational headlines, especially for comments; however, survey responses indicated credibility costs, including skepticism, cross-checking, and avoidance of repeatedly sensational outlets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 81 survey respondents' self-reported perceptions are indicative of Nepali online news consumers' perceptions of sensational headlines and credibility.
  • Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Sensational headlines received higher mean engagement across all three visible indicators: likes, shares, and comments.

    “Sensational headlines received higher mean engagement across all three visible indicators: likes, shares, and comments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. 19
  • May combine two claims. 34

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Results and Discussion

    Some clickbait features can increase user interaction, and sensational features can be associated with engagement on social platforms.

    “It also aligns with research showing that some clickbait features can increase user interaction (Jung et al., 2022;Kuiken et al., 2017) and that sensational features can be associated with engagement on social platforms (Khawar & Boukes, 2025).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jung et al., 2022 source
    • cites Kuiken et al., 2017 source
    • cites Khawar & Boukes, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Results and Discussion

    Experimental work indicates that directing users' attention to accuracy can improve sharing quality and reduce misinformation circulation.

    “Experimental work indicates that directing users' attention to accuracy can improve sharing quality and reduce misinformation circulation (Pennycook et al., 2020(Pennycook et al., , 2021;;Roozenbeek et al., 2021).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Pennycook et al., 2020 source
    • cites Pennycook et al., 2021 source
    • cites Roozenbeek et al., 2021 source

      The Results (Stage 2; page unavailable) report improved truth discernment and significantly lower willingness to share false headlines after an accuracy nudge. This supports improved sharing quality and a possible reduction in misinformation sharing, but the experiment measured stated sharing intentions, not whether misinformation circulation actually fell. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Studies of clickbait and sensationalism suggest that some headline features can increase user interaction, but the effect is uneven, context-dependent, and often accompanied by reputational risk.

    “Studies of clickbait and sensationalism suggest that some headline features can increase user interaction, but the effect is uneven, context-dependent, and often accompanied by reputational risk (Jácobo-Morales, & Marino-Jiménez, 2024;Jung et al., 2022;Khawar & Boukes, 2025;Kuiken et al., 2017).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim2 of 3 sources checked
    • cites Jácobo-Morales, & Marino-Jiménez, 2024 source
    • cites Jung et al., 2022 source
    • cites Khawar & Boukes, 2025

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework

    Accuracy prompts can modestly improve users' sharing decisions.

    “Pennycook et al. (2020) and Roozenbeek et al. (2021) show that accuracy prompts can modestly improve users' sharing decisions, while Pennycook et al. (2021) argue that shifting attention toward accuracy can reduce misinformation sharing online.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim2 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Pennycook et al. (2020) source
    • cites Roozenbeek et al. (2021) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Results and Discussion

    Sharma et al. (2022) show the importance of ethical standards in sensitive reporting in Nepal.

    “Sharma et al. (2022), for example, show the importance of ethical standards in sensitive reporting in Nepal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Sharma et al. (2022) source

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Sensationalism in journalism is associated with dramatic presentation, emotional appeals, moral polarization, and prioritization of shock or curiosity over proportionality.

    “It has long been associated with dramatic presentation, emotional appeals, moral polarization, and the prioritization of shock or curiosity over proportionality (Molek-Kozakowska, 2013;Vettehen et al., 2008).”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim1 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Molek-Kozakowska, 2013 source
    • cites Vettehen et al., 2008 source

      The Sensationalism section (page unavailable) identifies dramatic subjects and attention-getting audiovisual features, and the Discussion links some of these features to viewers’ emotional arousal. The paper does not characterize sensationalism in terms of moral polarization or prioritizing shock or curiosity over proportionality. (LLM, conf=0.88)

      Experimental — accuracy not yet measured

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Expressed as relative differences, sensational headlines received approximately 20.8% more likes, 18.4% more shares, and 27.8% more comments.

    “Expressed as relative differences, sensational headlines received approximately 20.8% more likes, 18.4% more shares, and 27.8% more comments.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Abstract

    Sensational headlines received higher mean visible engagement (likes, shares, and comments) than non-sensational headlines in the sampled Facebook posts, with the difference especially pronounced for comments.

    “Sensational headlines received higher mean engagement than non-sensational headlines, especially for comments; however, survey responses indicated credibility costs, including skepticism, cross-checking, and avoidance of repeatedly sensational outlets.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook likes, shares, and comments are valid indicators of audience engagement for comparing sensational and non-sensational headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three portals' Facebook engagement metrics are comparable enough to compare sensational and non-sensational headlines despite differences in follower base, algorithms, posting time, story salience, topic, and external events.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Outlet-level prevalence of sensational headlines differed: OnlineKhabar had 52%, The Himalayan Times 41%, and The Kathmandu Post 36%.

    “OnlineKhabar recorded the highest proportion of sensational headlines at 52%.The Himalayan Times followed at 41%, while The Kathmandu Post recorded 36%.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Respondents described coping strategies such as checking the same story across multiple outlets, reading beyond the headline before sharing, searching for official or alternative sources, and avoiding or unfollowing outlets perceived as overly sensational.

    “They described coping strategies such as checking the same story across multiple outlets, reading beyond the headline before sharing, searching for official or alternative sources, and avoiding or unfollowing outlets perceived as overly sensational.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Sensational headlines averaged 256 likes, 45 shares, and 23 comments, compared with 212 likes, 38 shares, and 18 comments for non-sensational headlines.

    “Sensational headlines averaged 256 likes, 45 shares, and 23 comments, compared with 212 likes, 38 shares, and 18 comments for non-sensational headlines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Across the 300 sampled headlines, 129 headlines (43%) were coded as sensational and 171 headlines (57%) were coded as non-sensational.

    “Across the 300 sampled headlines, 129 headlines, or 43%, were coded as sensational, while 171 headlines, or 57%, were coded as non-sensational.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Findingown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Survey responses indicate that Nepali online news consumers recognize sensational headlines and often respond ambivalently.

    “Survey responses indicate that Nepali online news consumers recognize sensational headlines and often respond ambivalently.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusion

    Platform metrics can make the first effect visible while hiding the second.

    “Platform metrics can make the first effect visible while hiding the second.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim.

    Premisecitation
    § Introduction

    Attention-economy theory holds that information abundance makes human attention the scarce resource around which communication systems reorganize.

    “Attention-economy theory argues that information abundance makes human attention the scarce resource around which communication systems reorganize (Davenport & Beck, 2001;Goldhaber, 1997).”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 2 sources checked
    • cites Davenport & Beck, 2001

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

    • cites Goldhaber, 1997 source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusion

    The study answers its central question in a qualified manner: sensational headlines can produce short-term engagement gains, but these gains do not compensate for the potential erosion of credibility when sensationalism becomes routine.

    “The study therefore answers its central question in a qualified manner: sensational headlines can produce short-term engagement gains, but these gains do not compensate for the potential erosion of credibility when sensationalism becomes routine.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.
    • Rests on an assumption: The coding scheme reliably identifies sensational headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month period is representative of the outlets' headline practices.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    Engagement metrics were taken from publicly visible Facebook post-level indicators and treated as descriptive measures of audience interaction, not as direct causal effects of headline wording.

    “Because platform algorithms, posting time, follower base, story salience, topic, and external events can influence engagement, the study does not interpret these metrics as direct causal effects of headline wording.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three portals' Facebook engagement metrics are comparable enough to compare sensational and non-sensational headlines despite differences in follower base, algorithms, posting time, story salience, topic, and external events.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The variation in sensationalism across outlets is analytically meaningful and indicates that headline sensationalism is shaped not only by general attention-economy pressures but also by organizational choices.

    “Nevertheless, the variation is analytically meaningful.It indicates that headline sensationalism is shaped not only by the general pressures of the attention economy but also by organizational choices.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results and Discussion

    The study's results are compatible with platform-diffusion theory but do not reduce sensationalism to misinformation.

    “The study's results are compatible with platformdiffusion theory but do not reduce sensationalism to misinformation.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Results and Discussion

    The survey sample is purposive and relatively small.

    “The survey sample is purposive and relatively small.”
    • Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · plain
      “The survey sample is small and purposive.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The study covers only one month and three outlets.

    “The study covers only one month and three outlets.”
    • Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · plain
      “The headline sample covers one month, three outlets, and Facebook posts only.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The findings reveal a trade-off: sensational headlines are associated with higher visible engagement, but repeated sensationalism risks reducing audience trust.

    “The findings therefore reveal a trade-off.Sensational headlines are associated with higher visible engagement, but repeated sensationalism risks reducing audience trust.”
    • Also stated in: § Conclusion · plain
      “However, the engagement advantage was modest and accompanied by audience-reported credibility costs.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.
    • Rests on an assumption: The coding scheme reliably identifies sensational headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.
    • Rests on an assumption: The one-month period is representative of the outlets' headline practices.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Sensational framing was not marginal in the sampled Facebook posts; it appeared in more than two-fifths of the observed headlines.

    “This indicates that sensational framing was not marginal in the sampled Facebook posts; it appeared in more than two-fifths of the observed headlines.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework

    False news diffused faster, farther, deeper, and more broadly than true news on Twitter (now X), partly because false stories often carried novelty and high-arousal emotional cues.

    “Vosoughi et al. (2018)showed that false news diffused faster, farther, deeper, and more broadly than true news on Twitter (now X), partly because false stories often carried novelty and high-arousal emotional cues.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vosoughi et al. (2018) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results and Discussion

    The platform environment may reward attention capture, but credibility remains socially negotiated.

    “The platform environment may reward attention capture, but credibility remains socially negotiated.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    Equal allocation of 100 headlines per outlet was used to enable outlet-level comparison and avoid domination of the dataset by a single high-volume source.

    “The equal allocation across outlets was used to make outlet-level comparison possible and to avoid domination of the dataset by a single highvolume source.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three selected portals (OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times) are prominent Nepali online news actors with active Facebook dissemination and different linguistic and editorial profiles, representative enough for the study's comparative snapshot.

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Results and Discussion

    The study uses visible engagement metrics that are observational and can be shaped by many factors beyond headline wording, including algorithms, timing, topic salience, outlet size, and external events.

    “It uses visible engagement metrics, which can be affected by algorithms, timing, topic salience, outlet size, and external events.”
    • Also stated in: § Materials and Methods · plain
      “Engagement metrics are observational and can be shaped by many factors beyond headline wording.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Results and Discussion

    False news can spread rapidly because of novelty and emotional arousal.

    “Vosoughi et al. (2018) demonstrated that false news can spread rapidly because of novelty and emotional arousal.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Vosoughi et al. (2018) source

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The magnitude of the engagement difference is modest rather than overwhelming; sensationalism provides an engagement lift but not a transformative one.

    “However, the magnitude of the difference is modest rather than overwhelming.Sensationalism appears to provide an engagement lift, but not a transformative one.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Results and Discussion

    The study examines Facebook posts, not website headlines across all distribution channels.

    “It examines Facebook posts, not website headlines across all distribution channels.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Conclusion

    Sensational headlines may succeed as short-term attention devices, but they can fail as long-term credibility signals.

    “Sensational headlines may succeed as short-term attention devices, but they can fail as long-term credibility signals.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The survey evidence shows that audiences are not passive recipients of attention tactics; users interpret, evaluate, and sometimes resist sensationalism through verification and avoidance.

    “However, the survey evidence shows that audiences are not passive recipients of attention tactics.Users interpret, evaluate, and sometimes resist sensationalism through verification and avoidance.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results and Discussion

    A headline can be accurate in a narrow sense but still misleading in emphasis, tone, proportionality, or implication.

    “A headline can be accurate in a narrow sense but still misleading in emphasis, tone, proportionality, or implication.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    Platform pressure is real but not deterministic.

    “This supports the view that platform pressure is real but not deterministic.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.
    • Rests on an assumption: The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable).

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    The findings should be read as a contextual and exploratory account of sensationalism, engagement, and credibility in Nepal's online news environment, not as a definitive causal model.

    “The findings should therefore be read as a contextual and exploratory account of sensationalism, engagement, and credibility in Nepal's online news environment, not as a definitive causal model.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    The survey used a purposive sample of 81 Nepali internet users who reported consuming online news, and its findings are interpreted as indicative audience perceptions rather than population-level estimates.

    “Because the survey used non-probability sampling, its findings are interpreted as indicative audience perceptions rather than population-level estimates.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The 81 survey respondents' self-reported perceptions are indicative of Nepali online news consumers' perceptions of sensational headlines and credibility.

  • May combine two claims.

    Interpretationown data
    § Results and Discussion

    The audience is not only an object of capture but also an agent of judgment.

    “The audience is therefore not only an object of capture but also an agent of judgment.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Study design and conductown data
    § Materials and Methods

    The study did not claim an intercoder reliability coefficient because the available dataset did not include a validated alpha or kappa statistic.

    “The revised manuscript reports the coding process transparently but does not claim an intercoder reliability coefficient because the available dataset did not include a validated alpha or kappa statistic.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S2 (checkable), S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Interpretationreasoning
    § Results and Discussion

    The limitations do not invalidate the findings, but they require cautious interpretation.

    “These limitations do not invalidate the findings, but they require cautious interpretation.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Premisecitation
    § Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework

    The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2025) reports continuing challenges for traditional news organizations, including declining engagement with direct news sources, low trust, and increased dependence on social and video platforms.

    “The Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2025) reports continuing challenges for traditional news organizations, including declining engagement with direct news sources, low trust, and increased dependence on social and video platforms.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Reuters Institute for the Study of Journalism (2025)

      Couldn’t be matched to a paper in Crossref, so it can’t be checked.

  • Classified as probably not a substantial claim. May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductreasoning
    § Materials and Methods

    The study does not claim that the sample statistically represents all Nepali online news; it provides a structured comparative snapshot of selected influential outlets during a defined period.

    “The study does not claim that the sample statistically represents all Nepali online news; rather, it provides a structured comparative snapshot of selected influential outlets during a defined period.”
    Quote in the paperSubstantial claim
    • Rests on an assumption: The three selected portals (OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times) are prominent Nepali online news actors with active Facebook dissemination and different linguistic and editorial profiles, representative enough for the study's comparative snapshot.

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing). May combine two claims.

    Study design and conductnone given
    § Results and Discussion

    The coding procedure is transparent but does not include a reported reliability coefficient.

    “The coding procedure is transparent but does not include a reported reliability coefficient.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim

  • Probably not a substantial claim: may not pass S3 (load-bearing).

    Premisecitation
    § Review of Literature and Theoretical Framework

    Shifting attention toward accuracy can reduce misinformation sharing online.

    “Pennycook et al. (2020) and Roozenbeek et al. (2021) show that accuracy prompts can modestly improve users' sharing decisions, while Pennycook et al. (2021) argue that shifting attention toward accuracy can reduce misinformation sharing online.”
    Quote in the paperNot a substantial claim0 of 1 sources checked
    • cites Pennycook et al. (2021) source
43 of 43

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three selected portals (OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Times) are prominent Nepali online news actors with active Facebook dissemination and different linguistic and editorial profiles, representative enough for the study's comparative snapshot.

    “The three portals -OnlineKhabar, The Kathmandu Post, and The Himalayan Timeswere selected purposively to reflect prominent Nepali online news actors with active Facebook dissemination and different linguistic and editorial profiles.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Facebook likes, shares, and comments are valid indicators of audience engagement for comparing sensational and non-sensational headlines.

    “Visible Facebook engagement indicators such as likes, shares, and comments, were descriptively compared across headline types.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The 81 survey respondents' self-reported perceptions are indicative of Nepali online news consumers' perceptions of sensational headlines and credibility.

    “Because the survey used non-probability sampling, its findings are interpreted as indicative audience perceptions rather than population-level estimates.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The sampling period June 15 to July 15, 2024 is representative of the outlets' normal headline practices and engagement patterns.

    “The sampling period was June 15 to July 15, 2024.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three portals' Facebook engagement metrics are comparable enough to compare sensational and non-sensational headlines despite differences in follower base, algorithms, posting time, story salience, topic, and external events.

    “Because platform algorithms, posting time, follower base, story salience, topic, and external events can influence engagement, the study does not interpret these metrics as direct causal effects of headline wording.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Facebook-posted headlines from the three outlets during the one-month period are representative of sensationalism in Nepal's online news headlines.

    “The headline sample covers one month, three outlets, and Facebook posts only.”
    “The study covers only one month and three outlets.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Visible Facebook engagement counts (likes, shares, comments) are valid indicators of audience engagement with headlines.

    “Engagement metrics are observational and can be shaped by many factors beyond headline wording.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    Survey respondents' reports reflect the perceptions of Nepali online news consumers more broadly.

    “The survey sample is small and purposive.”
    “Results are indicative because the survey used purposive sampling.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The coding scheme reliably identifies sensational headlines.

    “The coding procedure is transparent but does not include a reported reliability coefficient.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The three news outlets are representative of Nepal's online news ecosystem.

    “The headline sample covers one month, three outlets, and Facebook posts only.”

  • The paper relies on this without support.

    The one-month period is representative of the outlets' headline practices.

    “The study covers only one month and three outlets.”
11 of 11

Cites

The publisher hasn’t deposited this paper’s reference list.

Research works printed but not linked: 3

  1. Acharya, B. B., & Sharma, S. (Eds.) (2022). Global perspectives on journalism in Nepal: Nepalese news media in the twenty-first century. Routledge.
  2. Almgren, S. M., & Olsson, T. (2016). User interaction with online news: A comparative study of comments, Facebook, and Twitter. Nordicom Review, 37(2), 103-118. https://doi.org/10.1515/ nor-2016-0011 · DOI
  3. Davenport, T. H., & Beck, J. C. (2001). The attention economy: Understanding the new currency of business. Harvard Business School Press. Data Reportal. (2025, November 8). Digital 2026: Nepal. https://datareportal.com/reports/digital- 2026-nepal

Related

Authors
Dahal, S.
Affiliations
Kathmandu University (NP)
Corresponding author
Dahal, Sudhamshu
ORCID
Dahal, Sudhamshu
Venue
Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies
Publisher
Nepal Journals Online (JOL)
Published
2025-12-31
Volume
22
Issue
1
Pages
84-94
ISSN
  • 2392-4403 (ISSN-L)
  • 3021-9884
DOI
10.3126/njdrs.v22i1.99390
OpenAlex
W7211875533
Semantic Scholar
3eeb7380ac44db776cc187bd3fa008130538416b
Cited by
0
References
0
FWCI
0.00
Type
journal article
Language
en
Open access
Licence
Locations
Nepalese Journal of Development and Rural Studies (publishedVersion, cc-by)
Topics
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Media Studies and Communication
  • Social Sciences › Communication › Journalism and Media Studies
  • Social Sciences › Sociology and Political Science › Misinformation and Its Impacts
Keywords
online news, audience engagement, news credibility, Facebook engagement, emotional expression, hyperbole, news trust, attention economy, algorithmic feeds, digital journalism, news avoidance

About these checks

Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.

Claims read by deepseek-v4.1-flash under definition version 3 (extract-v3) on 2026-10-28.

Classified by jev-1.13-20260917 (gold-guideline-v0.2) on 2026-10-28.

Cited sources are checked by gpt-6-sol.

Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.

Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.

What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›

Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review