The tahsildar of Hosanagara issued a notice to the production team of "Kantara: The Legend – Part 1" following reports of an incident during filming at the backwaters of Mani Dam. The notice required the production team to provide details about the mishap along with relevant records within three days. The tahsildar warned that failure to respond could lead to a recommendation for senior officials to revoke shooting permissions at that location.

The incident in question involved part of a set collapsing during heavy rains on June 14, while several individuals, including the film's director Rishab Shetty, were present. A production executive later clarified that a ship backdrop had fallen due to wind but confirmed that no injuries occurred. This action was taken under directives from Deputy Commissioner Gurudatta Hegde.

Original article

The provided text is a news article reporting on an incident involving the filming of the movie "Kantara: The Legend – Part 1" and the subsequent notice issued by the tahsildar to the production team. Upon analysis, several forms of bias and language manipulation become apparent.

One of the most striking aspects of this text is its cultural and ideological bias, which leans towards a nationalist perspective. The use of terms like "tahsildar" and "Deputy Commissioner" suggests a focus on local authority figures, which may be intended to evoke a sense of national pride or loyalty. The fact that these officials are mentioned by name, such as Gurudatta Hegde, adds to this effect, implying that they are responsible individuals who deserve respect. This framing reinforces a narrative that prioritizes national interests over other considerations.

Furthermore, the text exhibits linguistic and semantic bias through its use of emotionally charged language. Words like "incident," "mishap," and "collapse" create a sense of drama and urgency, which may be intended to grab the reader's attention. The phrase "part of a set collapsing during heavy rains" is particularly noteworthy, as it implies that something catastrophic has occurred without providing sufficient context or details about what actually happened. This kind of language can create an emotional response in readers without providing them with accurate information.

The text also displays selection and omission bias by focusing on one particular aspect of the incident – namely, the collapse of part of the set – while omitting other relevant details. For instance, there is no mention of how long filming had been taking place at Mani Dam or what measures were in place to prevent accidents. By selectively presenting information, the text creates an incomplete picture that reinforces its own narrative.

In addition to these biases, there is also evidence of framing and narrative bias in how events are presented. The story structure implies that something went wrong during filming (the collapse), which led to official intervention (the notice). This ordering creates a causal link between two events without providing sufficient evidence or context for why this sequence occurred. Moreover, by emphasizing official action (the notice), rather than exploring potential causes for accidents or discussing safety protocols in place at Mani Dam, we see another example where structural/institutional bias comes into play; here it serves as gatekeeping mechanism protecting existing power structures from scrutiny.

Regarding sources cited within this article none are explicitly mentioned; however based on content style tone one could reasonably infer reliance upon local news outlets possibly affiliated with government institutions given their tendency toward sympathetic portrayals public figures involved administrative actions taken against private entities operating within their jurisdiction such behavior often indicative systemic institutional biases embedded within media apparatuses serving regional interests over others