Residents of the Long Bridge report severe damage on the motorway overpass, with gravel falling off and exposing iron structures. They express concern that the issue has been known to Darsa but no repairs have begun. The residents note that the bridge sees heavy daily traffic and question why repairs are not being prioritized. Darsa states they regularly inspect infrastructure and have conducted inspections, noting structural issues but confirming the bridge remains safe for use. They mention that project documentation has been prepared and public procurement for repairs is ongoing. However, residents remain worried that the situation will not be addressed promptly until an incident occurs. The Infrastructure Inspectorate was not informed about the issue and could not comment.
Bias read (Center): The article presents both the concerns raised by local residents and the official response from Darsa. While there is some criticism of Darsa's handling of the issue, the tone remains balanced, presenting facts from both perspectives without overtly favoring either side. The framing does not exhibit
Why factuality (75): The article reports on local residents' concerns about damage to the viaduct on Long Bridge, citing visible debris and exposed iron structures. It references statements from Darsa confirming they are aware of the issue but have not yet started repairs. The information aligns with the cross-source co
Why objectivity (65): The tone leans slightly towards concern and criticism of the authorities' response, using phrases like 'Most ima dnevno res veliko pretočnost, očitno pa ni dovolj zanimanja za popravilo.' This suggests a degree of editorializing rather than purely factual reporting.




