✕ Sensationalism [9/10]: The headline uses hyperbolic and emotionally charged language like 'spiralling badly' and 'burned ALL their bridges' to dramatize the situation.

"They've lost the plot. She's spiralling badly"

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: The use of ALL CAPS in 'ALL their bridges' emphasizes a total collapse, suggesting finality and extremity without nuance.

"burned ALL their bridges"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [7/10]: The headline emphasizes personal drama and failure over policy, public service, or other dimensions of the couple’s work.

"How Meghan and Harry have burned ALL their bridges as insiders reveal spectacular fallout with Anna Wintour and Kardashians, money woes - and 'problems"

✕ Loaded Language [9/10]: Phrases like 'lost the plot' and 'spiralling badly' are judgmental and emotionally loaded, undermining objectivity.

"They've lost the plot. She's spiralling badly"

✕ Editorializing [8/10]: The article inserts subjective commentary, such as questioning the couple’s motives and success, rather than reporting neutrally.

"But to what end?"

✕ Appeal to Emotion [7/10]: The narrative evokes pity or schadenfreude by focusing on alleged personal decline and isolation.

"I hear she’s spiralling badly because she knows nothing is working."

✕ Vague Attribution [10/10]: Frequent use of unnamed sources ('One source says', 'the story told is') undermines credibility and allows unchecked claims.

"One source says: ‘They have truly lost the plot. I hear she’s spiralling badly because she knows nothing is working.’"

✕ Cherry-Picking [8/10]: Only negative perspectives from unnamed California sources are included, with no counterpoints from the Sussexes or their representatives.

"Speaking to sources in California, the story told is one of wall-to-wall fall-outs and alienation."

✕ Vague Attribution [10/10]: Reliance on anonymous sources without identifying who they are or their potential biases.

"One source says: ‘They have truly lost the plot. I hear she’s spiralling badly because she knows nothing is working.’"

✕ Omission [9/10]: No effort to include statements from Meghan, Harry, or their team to balance the claims made.

✕ Omission [8/10]: Fails to provide context on the Sussexes’ philanthropic work, business ventures, or public support they may still have.

✕ Misleading Context [7/10]: Presents the lack of Met Gala invitation as a sign of social downfall without noting that many public figures don’t attend.

"Not attending? The Duke and Duchess of Sussex – yet again."

✕ Selective Coverage [8/10]: Focuses on personal conflicts and alleged failures while ignoring broader context of their post-royal activities and public engagement.

"the couple’s problems are worse than many suspect because of Meghan and Harry’s unfortunate habit of falling out with the very people who could help them make a go of things financially."