✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [5/10]: The headline frames the event as confirmed ('shots fired near White House'), but the body acknowledges the information is unverified and under investigation. This creates a mismatch between the certainty implied in the headline and the caution in the reporting.

"Law enforcement authorities are responding to reports of shots fired near White House"

✕ Loaded Verbs [4/10]: The use of 'ducked for cover' and 'eyes grow wider' adds emotional weight and dramatizes the reporter's reaction, contributing to a sense of urgency and danger.

"Wang’s eyes grow wider, and she ducks down in the media tent"

✕ Passive-Voice Agency Obfuscation [3/10]: The phrase 'shots were fired' avoids specifying who fired, which is appropriate given uncertainty, but contributes to a sense of anonymous threat.

"shots fired near the White House grounds"

✓ Proper Attribution [9/10]: The article clearly attributes statements to official sources like the Secret Service and FBI director, maintaining accountability.

"On X, the Secret Service said it was 'aware of reports of shots fired near 17th Street and Pennsylvania Avenue NW'"

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [8/10]: Uses multiple sources including official statements, journalist accounts, and social media posts, enhancing credibility.

"In a post shared on X, Selina Wang, the senior White House correspondent for ABC News, shared dramatic video..."

✕ Episodic Framing [6/10]: The article focuses narrowly on the immediate incident without broader analysis of security lapses or patterns, treating it as a singular event.

✕ Framing by Emphasis [5/10]: The narrative emphasizes the dramatic reactions of journalists and the proximity to the White House, centering danger and response rather than systemic issues.

"Journalists working there Saturday reported hearing a series of gunshots and were told to seek shelter inside the press briefing room."