✕ Headline / Body Mismatch [75/10]: The headline focuses on the $20,000 cost, which is a central theme in the article, but it frames the story around financial burden rather than safety, legal process, or systemic issues. It is accurate but slightly reductive.

"A woman's $20,000 bill for protection from her ex"

✕ Loaded Language [9/10]: The article uses neutral language overall, avoiding loaded labels or adjectives. Descriptions of abuse are reported through direct quotes or attributed statements, not asserted by the reporter.

"He harassed me, and I have to pay,” she says. “It’s a lot of money considering all I wanted to do was to split up and be left alone."

✕ Appeal to Emotion [8/10]: The reporter attributes emotional descriptions to the subject rather than editorializing them, maintaining objectivity.

"Unable to sleep and feeling in a permanent state of fight or flight, Sarah began compiling a timeline of the messages and consulted a lawyer."

✓ Comprehensive Sourcing [9/10]: The article includes multiple named and attributed sources: the subject (anonymised), her lawyer (quoted but not named), and Labour spokesperson Helen White, a lawyer and MP. This provides professional and political context.

"Labour spokesperson for Prevention of Family and Sexual Violence, Helen White, a lawyer who has worked in this field, says the cost associated with obtaining a protection order can be a significant barrier."

✓ Viewpoint Diversity [8/10]: The lawyer's dual role as advocate and business owner is acknowledged, adding nuance to her perspective on fees and access to justice.

"I always find it hard to raise an invoice for that sort of work,” she says, “because I feel stink. I’m in this job because I want to help people, but it’s also my business. I’m not a charity."

✕ Single-Source Reporting [4/10]: The article includes the perspective of the respondent only indirectly through the applicant’s account; there is no attempt to contact or represent the ex-husband’s side.

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: The story is framed around the financial cost of safety, which is a legitimate and impactful angle. It avoids reducing the story to a simple conflict and instead focuses on systemic access-to-justice issues.

"I should not have to pay to be safe, and I should not have to pay my lawyer to fight for me to get some costs back."

✕ Narrative Framing [8/10]: The article does not frame the story as episodic; it connects the individual case to broader legal and policy issues, including legal aid, cost recovery, and new legislation.

"Sarah’s concerns come as New Zealand’s new anti-stalking legislation takes effect, recognising stalking as serious enough to warrant a five-year prison sentence."