✕ Loaded Labels [5/10]: The headline uses the phrase 'Permanent liability' in quotes, directly quoting a farmer's strong emotional characterization of the proposal. This frames the story around the farmers' perspective from the outset, potentially privileging their alarm over other angles.

""Permanent liability": Farmers blast Great Taste Trail route plan"

✕ Loaded Adjectives [4/10]: The lead paragraph accurately summarizes the core conflict and includes the farmers' concerns, but opens with their perspective and uses the word 'blast', which carries an emotional, confrontational tone.

"Two farmers say a proposed reinstatement of Tasman’s Great Taste Trail through farmland will disrupt stock, damage land, and make their work "incredibly difficult"."

✕ Appeal to Emotion [6/10]: The article uses direct quotes with emotionally charged language from farmers, such as 'permanent liability' and 'please please do the right thing by us all', which may amplify their distress. The reporter does not neutralize this language in narration.

"“The proposed site that you are thinking about is going to really make it incredibly difficult for us. Farming’s already really, really hard, please please do the right thing by us all.”"

✕ Loaded Verbs [5/10]: The word 'blast' in the headline and lead is a charged verb that frames the farmers’ response as aggressive, which may bias the reader before presenting the full context.

"Farmers blast Great Taste Trail route plan"

✕ Glittering Generalities [9/10]: Supporters of the trail use measured, data-driven language (e.g., $34 million benefits, half a million passes), creating a contrast in tone that may subtly favor their credibility.

"More than half a million “passes” had been clocked by trail counters in the past year, and feedback regularly reinforced that users dislike the on-road sections."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The article includes multiple named sources from both sides: two farmers, a council spokesperson, a transportation manager, a cycling tour operator, a trails trust chair, and an Outdoor Access Commission advisor. This represents diverse stakeholders.

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: Farmers are quoted directly and given space to express their concerns, but they declined further comment. Their voices are prominent, but not unchallenged.

"score**: "

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: Supporters of the trail are also given direct quotes and named attribution, including economic and access arguments, balancing the farmers' concerns with public and tourism interests.

"Nicky McBride, tour director at Wheelie Fantastic Cycle Tours, said the cycle tour market was competitive, with the Great Taste Trail being one of the nation’s 22 Great Rides."

✕ Vague Attribution [6/10]: The article acknowledges that the council held closed-door discussions, Operations and Regulatory Committee meeting, which may limit transparency about decision-making, but this is not the reporter’s fault.

✕ Conflict Framing [8/10]: The article is framed around the conflict between farmers and trail advocates, which is legitimate, but it does so without reducing the issue to a simplistic 'us vs them' narrative. It acknowledges complexity and the need for negotiation.

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: The article does not present the story as a moral battle between good and evil, nor does it overemphasize strategy or polling. It treats the issue as a practical negotiation with real trade-offs.

✕ Episodic Framing [10/10]: The article avoids episodic framing by connecting the current proposal to prior storm damage and long-term trail usage patterns, providing systemic context.