Latest: Scientists find surface rupture and ground shifts of up to 3.5 metres after Tibet quake
A magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Baqen County in Nagqu, Tibet, late on 22 October, killing at least 16 people and collapsing or damaging more than 300 homes. Chinese authorities sent over 1,600 rescuers, tents and prefabricated houses and moved more than 12,000 people to safety, and 413 aftershocks were recorded.
A later report on 28 October said scientists found surface rupture about 15 km from the epicentre, with ground level differences of up to 3.5 metres. Summary updated 28 Oct, 19:40 IST
Why it matters: The quake hit a Himalayan region bordering India, so its scale, ground effects and relief response draw attention in India, which also lies in a seismically active zone.
Winding down: no new coverage since 28 Oct. It will be archived on 4 Nov unless new coverage appears.
New developments are added here, newest first. When the headline, summary or other sections change, the earlier version is kept under “See earlier version”.
Headline before this update: Tibet magnitude 7.0 quake kills 16, 413 aftershocks recorded
Summary before this update: A magnitude 7.0 earthquake struck Baqen County in Nagqu, Tibet, late on 22 October, killing at least 16 people and collapsing or damaging more than 300 homes. Chinese authorities activated an emergency response, sent over 1,600 rescuers, tents and prefabricated houses, and moved more than 12,000 people to safety, while China's monitoring centre recorded 413 aftershocks and injury counts and depth estimates differed across reports.
Note before this update: All outlets report the story as a plain disaster report; they differ mainly on injury counts, quake depth and the emergency response level.
“What's missing” before this update:
Based on 13 articles read in full. Scores describe each article's framing, not the outlet and not whether it is accurate.
Large outlets read: 2 of 15 (India Today, Aaj Tak). Most of India’s largest outlets, including NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu and Indian Express, block our reader in this prototype, so their coverage is missing here. The launch pipeline reads their public feeds.
All outlets report the story as a plain disaster report; they differ mainly on injury counts, quake depth and the emergency response level, and one later report adds the ground-rupture findings.
No real disagreement between sides in this coverage.
Why: Disaster report on a Chinese earthquake with no Indian policy, religion, social justice or statism angle; it relays casualty figures and rescue details neutrally.
Why: A plain disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with no Indian policy, identity or social-justice angle. It does not touch any ideological dimension and has no Union government angle.
Why: Straight disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty figures, rescue efforts and geology. No Indian policy, religion, social justice or statism angle, and no government framing.
Why: Disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty figures and background; no policy, identity or state-role angle, and no government stance toward India's Union government.
Why: Disaster report on a Chinese earthquake with no Indian policy, religion, social justice or statism angle; factual tone and no government stance toward India's Union government.
Why: Disaster report on a Chinese earthquake with no Indian policy, identity or economic angle, so it is not ideological. It relays Xinhua and official statements without commentary.
Why: A disaster report on a Tibet earthquake in China, with no Indian policy angle and none of the ideological dimensions touched. Plain factual reporting.
Why: Natural disaster report on a Chinese region with no Indian policy, identity or welfare angle; neutral factual tone throughout, so not ideological.
Why: Disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty and relief details. No Indian policy, religion, social justice or statism angle, so not ideological. No Union government angle.
Why: A disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty figures and relief details. It has no Indian policy angle and touches none of the ideological dimensions.
Why: Disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty figures and background; no Indian policy, identity, social justice or statism angle, so not ideological.
Why: A disaster report on a Tibet earthquake with casualty figures and rescue efforts. It has no Indian policy angle and touches none of the ideology dimensions, so it is not ideological.
Why: Science explainer on ground rupture after a Tibet earthquake; no policy, religion, social justice or state-role angle, so not ideological and no government stance.
Critical, Neutral or Supportive, scored separately. It refers to the Union government unless the story is about a state. On the spectrum strip, each dot is an article: its position is the ideology score and its colour is the stance.
If an article would score differently with the parties' roles reversed, that signal is partisanship. It goes into the stance tag, not the ideology score.
High, Medium or Low, based on how much of the article was read, how many clear signals it has, and whether they agree.
Stories with fewer than five articles are marked. A blindspot is a contested story where we found coverage from only one side.
Articles that touch none of the three dimensions, such as a car launch or a match report, carry no ideology score.
This prototype is refreshed by hand (last on 17 Oct, 03:00 IST). At launch:
| Wires and the top 20 outlets | checked every 5 minutes |
| All other outlets | checked every 15 minutes |
| New story | goes up at 3 articles from 2 or more outlets, marked Limited coverage |
| Live stories | new articles added every 15 minutes; summary rewritten at most hourly |
| Home page order | every 15 minutes |
New facts go into a dated update log at the top of the story. New articles carry an “Added” tag. If a note or list changes, the earlier version stays viewable.
A story is Live while coverage arrives, Winding down after about 2 days without new coverage, and Archived after about 7. Nothing is deleted: links never change, archived scores are frozen, and stories stay on their issue pages and in search.
NDTV, India Today, Times of India, Hindustan Times, The Hindu, Indian Express, News18, ABP, Times Now and Mint block the reader used for this prototype, so their articles are missing. Each story shows how many of India’s 15 largest outlets we read. The launch pipeline will read outlets’ public feeds, TV transcripts and Hindi articles.
Editor-in-charge: S. Kalra, editor@thenazariya.com. The editor-in-charge sets Nazariya's editorial rules, reviews the AI desks' daily decisions, and is responsible for everything we publish.
How we work: AI reads and scores every article against our published rubric; an AI standards desk checks accuracy and fairness; people set the rules, review decisions and handle complaints.
Grievance officer under the IT Rules, 2021: to be confirmed (based in India). Until then, write to grievance@thenazariya.com. Complaints are acknowledged within 24 hours and resolved within 15 days. To report a factual error: corrections@thenazariya.com. Other questions: support@thenazariya.com.
Ownership: Nazariya is independently owned by S. Kalra, an Indian citizen.
Funding: Nazariya is currently funded entirely by its founder. It carries no advertising and takes no money from any political party, government or party-linked organisation. In future it will be supported by optional reader memberships. Any other funder, grant or investor will be listed here, with the amount and date.
Independence: No owner, funder or member can change a story, a score or a correction. Scores follow the published rubric, and anyone can appeal them.
Anyone, including the outlet that published an article, can appeal a score: tap any score on a story page, then "Appeal this score" to write to the editor. Outlets can also dispute a summary. The editor reviews every appeal, and any change is recorded below. Appeals: appeals@thenazariya.com.
No detail that could identify a child or a survivor of sexual violence (Juvenile Justice Act, POCSO, BNS section 72). Court cases are reported as what was said and alleged. No analysis of a poll in the 48 hours before voting there (Representation of the People Act, section 126). Press Council and NBDSA norms on communal incidents.