✕ Sensationalism [6/10]: The headline uses the emotionally charged word 'Disgraceful' in quotes, which frames the event with strong moral judgment before presenting facts. While attributed to a source, its placement in the headline amplifies outrage.

"‘Disgraceful’: Two women arrested after allegedly vandalising Heidelberg RSL on Anzac Day"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [5/10]: The headline emphasizes the arrest and the sacrilegious timing (Anzac Day), directing immediate attention to the perceived disrespect rather than the factual occurrence of vandalism.

"Two women arrested after allegedly vandalising Heidelberg RSL on Anzac Day"

✕ Loaded Language [8/10]: The article quotes inflammatory graffiti such as 'F**k Anzac' and 'Death to the ADF' without sufficient distancing or contextual framing, potentially amplifying shock value over sober reporting.

"“F**k Anzac” and “Death to the ADF” sprayed in red on the side of the building."

✕ Appeal to Emotion [7/10]: Use of phrases like 'hateful act' and emphasis on attendees seeing graffiti during the 'gunfire breakfast' evoke emotional responses, aligning reader sentiment with RSL’s perspective.

"many attendees and members were unfortunately exposed to the graffiti while attending our traditional gunfire breakfast."

✕ Editorializing [6/10]: The inclusion of the RSL spokesman’s statement that the attack 'does nothing but strengthen our resolve' is left unchallenged and contributes to a narrative of moral triumph, which edges into opinion territory.

"“The paint will be removed our memorial will be restored to honour the glory of our fallen,”"

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: All key claims — arrests, locations, charges — are attributed to Victoria Police, ensuring accountability for factual assertions.

"Victoria Police said"

✓ Proper Attribution [8/10]: Statements from the RSL are clearly attributed to a 'spokesman', distinguishing institutional opinion from fact.

"In a statement, an RSL spokesman said the vandalism was “disgraceful”."

✓ Balanced Reporting [6/10]: While only police and RSL perspectives are included, the article avoids inventing alternative viewpoints and sticks to official sources, which is appropriate for a breaking crime report.

✕ Omission [8/10]: The article provides no background on possible motivations for the vandalism, prior incidents, or broader context of anti-military or anti-Anzac sentiment in Australia, leaving readers without understanding of why this might have occurred.

✕ Cherry-Picking [6/10]: Focuses only on the offensive nature of the graffiti without exploring whether similar incidents have occurred in the past or if there is a pattern, which would help assess significance.

✕ Selective Coverage [7/10]: The decision to highlight this incident prominently on Anzac Day suggests editorial prioritization of symbolic offense over other potential news, possibly due to national sentiment.