✕ Loaded Adjectives [60/10]: The headline frames the story as Morocco using tourism as a tool for political control, which is a strong interpretive claim. While supported by later expert commentary, it is not neutral and sets a narrative tone upfront.

"Morocco boosting tourism to tighten its control of Western Sahara"

✕ Sensationalism [70/10]: The lead paragraph begins with a personal anecdote about receiving a Ryanair email, which draws the reader in but risks prioritising narrative flair over immediate context about the territorial dispute.

"Back in March, an email landed in my inbox from Irish airline Ryanair asking me if I was ready for my "next Moroccan adventure"."

✕ Loaded Language [2/10]: The phrase 'illegally occupied territories' appears in a quote from a campaigner but is not independently asserted by the reporter, preserving neutrality while reporting a contested view.

"seriously questions about corporate responsibility and due diligence in politically sensitive and illegally occupied territories"

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: The use of 'occupied and administered by Morocco' is factual and consistent with UN terminology, avoiding overt bias.

"some 80% of Western Sahara is occupied and administered by Morocco, its northern neighbour."

✕ Appeal to Emotion [9/10]: The article avoids emotional appeals and maintains a measured tone, even when discussing rights violations and displacement.

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: The article includes a named expert, Erik Hagen of Western Sahara Resource Watch, who provides a critical perspective on corporate complicity in the occupation, enhancing credibility.

"Erik Hagen, of the campaign group Western Sahara Resource Watch, says airlines referring to the territory as Morocco is both concerning and misleading."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [8/10]: It quotes a tourist, Tom Ruck, offering on-the-ground observations about the emptiness of resorts and Moroccan symbols, adding experiential evidence.

"You've got quite a lot of resorts being built, however they were very, very empty"

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: Corporate voices are included via statements from Transavia France and Booking.com, though Ryanair and Expedia declined to comment — fairly reported.

"Transavia France tells the BBC the firm "operates flights to Dakhla in accordance with the authorisations received from the authorities"."

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: The Moroccan government is given space to respond but did not, which is transparently noted — a fair handling of non-response.

"The Moroccan government has not responded to a request for a comment."

✓ Proper Attribution [7/10]: The Polisario Front is represented through a quote from Breika, though no further detail on his role or position is given, slightly weakening attribution.

"Breika remains defiant: "We hope Morocco understands that investing in tourism or any other economical projects does not replace the will of Sahrawis people and its inalienable right to decide its future.""

✕ Narrative Framing [7/10]: The article frames the story around the idea that tourism is being used as a tool of political consolidation, which is a legitimate but interpretive angle that risks downplaying other possible motivations like economic development.

"Morocco boosting tourism to tighten its control of Western Sahara"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: It avoids reducing the issue to a simple conflict frame and instead explores systemic implications of corporate participation in disputed territories.

✕ Episodic Framing [8/10]: The focus remains on the political and legal consequences of tourism normalisation rather than episodic reporting of isolated events, contributing to a more structural understanding.