Several schools in Bengaluru received hoax bomb threat emails on June 16, 2025, causing panic among staff members. This incident occurred just three days after a similar threat was reported at Kempegowda International Airport. The bomb threats were also reported in schools located in Udupi and Hassan, which were later confirmed to be hoaxes.

Upon receiving the threats, police conducted thorough checks at the affected schools and determined that the emails were not credible. Authorities indicated that the same email had been sent to multiple educational institutions across Bengaluru and other regions of Karnataka. A probe has been initiated to identify the source of these threatening communications.

Earlier, on June 13, a hoax email was directed at the Central Industrial Security Force (CISF), responsible for security at Bengaluru airport. An FIR was subsequently filed by airport police based on a complaint from Prakash Kumar Mishra, a senior CISF official, charging an unknown individual under various sections of relevant laws.

Original article

The text under analysis presents a plethora of biases, each subtly woven into the narrative to shape the reader's perception of the events described. One of the most striking biases is the linguistic and semantic bias, evident in the emotionally charged language used to describe the hoax bomb threats. The phrase "causing panic among staff members" creates a sense of urgency and fear, which is then reinforced by phrases like "thorough checks" and "probe initiated." This language serves to create a narrative that emphasizes the gravity of the situation and positions law enforcement as proactive and effective. However, this framing also obscures agency, implying that authorities are solely responsible for mitigating threats without acknowledging any potential shortcomings or systemic issues.

Furthermore, this text exhibits cultural bias rooted in nationalism. The emphasis on identifying the source of threatening communications implies a focus on domestic security concerns rather than international cooperation or global perspectives on terrorism. This framing reinforces a narrow view of national security that prioritizes internal threats over external ones. Additionally, there is an implicit assumption about what constitutes a credible threat; this assumption may be influenced by Western worldviews on terrorism and security.

The text also displays economic bias through its framing of institutions like Kempegowda International Airport as targets worthy of protection. This focus on high-profile targets reinforces an economic narrative that prioritizes corporate interests (in this case, airport operations) over other sectors or individuals who may be equally vulnerable to threats but receive less attention from authorities.

Moreover, there is structural bias embedded in how sources are presented or implied throughout the text. For instance, when discussing earlier incidents at CISF facilities (Central Industrial Security Force), it mentions an FIR was filed based on a complaint from Prakash Kumar Mishra, but it does not delve into any potential systemic issues within CISF or broader questions about accountability within such institutions.

In terms of selection and omission bias, certain facts are highlighted while others remain unmentioned. For example, it notes multiple schools received hoax emails but fails to provide context about why these schools were targeted specifically or whether similar incidents have occurred in other regions with less media attention.

Temporal bias becomes apparent when examining how historical events are framed relative to contemporary ones. The initial incident at Kempegowda International Airport occurred just three days before similar threats were reported at schools in Bengaluru; however, no explanation is provided for why these incidents might be connected beyond their timing.

Lastly, confirmation bias plays out through selective presentation of evidence; while some details about past incidents are included (e.g., an FIR was filed after an email was sent to CISF), other information could have been included to provide more nuanced insights into these events (e.g., specific details about previous investigations into similar threats).

Cultural assumptions rooted in Western worldviews also influence how certain actions are framed as legitimate responses to perceived threats ("thorough checks," "probe initiated"). These actions might not be universally applicable across all cultural contexts where different approaches might be considered more effective or appropriate responses.

Selections regarding sources cited reinforce particular narratives; however no specific sources are mentioned within this article which makes it difficult to assess their credibility directly from this piece alone