✕ Loaded Labels [30/10]: The headline uses emotionally charged language ('We will support him to the day we die') and positions the story around personal loyalty, which frames the subject (Roberts-Smith) as a revered figure despite serious legal allegations. It previews a narrative of unwavering personal devotion rather than journalistic neutrality.

"‘We will support him to the day we die’: Kids of fallen SAS heroes break silence on BRS"

✕ Sensationalism [25/10]: The lead opens with a dramatic, cinematic reconstruction of a child learning of his father’s death, creating emotional immersion before introducing the central subject. This prioritises emotional engagement over factual or balanced introduction.

"As Leigh Locke ducked out for some errands, she repeated her usual instruction to 12-year-old Keegan: “Make sure you keep the front door locked”. Just half an hour later, she returned home to find the screen door ajar. Her heart plummeted."

✕ Loaded Adjectives [9/10]: The article uses highly positive, emotionally charged descriptors ('genuinely looked after us all', 'truly genuine, good person') that reflect advocacy rather than neutral reporting.

"He embodies service and sacrifice – it goes far deeper than just being a military person; he’s a truly genuine, good person."

✕ Glittering Generalities [9/10]: Phrases like 'one of the greatest humans I have ever met' are presented without challenge or contextualisation, functioning as editorial endorsements.

"he is simply one of the greatest humans I have ever met in my entire life."

✕ Sympathy Appeal [9/10]: The article reproduces unchallenged praise from sources without counterpoint, creating a tone of reverence rather than inquiry.

"He is an extremely humble, selfless, caring and truely genuine man who has done unthinkable things for our family"

✕ Source Asymmetry [9/10]: All named sources are individuals personally connected to Roberts-Smith through personal support or family loss, creating a clear bias. No opposing perspectives or critical voices are included.

"Keegan Locke told news.com.au there was a significant gap in the public narrative surrounding Ben Roberts-Smith."

✕ Single-Source Reporting [9/10]: The article relies exclusively on emotional testimonials from people Roberts-Smith has helped, with no attribution of factual claims about the war crimes or counter-narratives. This creates a one-sided portrayal.

"He’s a polarising figure, certainly, because of his stature and his demeanour. But he is fiercely loyal to people who are 100 per cent committed and headed in the right direction."

✕ Vague Attribution [9/10]: The only mention of the allegations is a brief, detached sentence with no sourcing or elaboration, while the supportive voices are quoted at length and with emotional detail.

"Roberts-Smith has been charged with five counts of war crime murder stemming from his service with the Special Air Service Regiment in Afghanistan."

✕ Moral Framing [9/10]: The story is framed as a moral defence of Roberts-Smith through the lens of personal sacrifice and loyalty, casting him as a misunderstood hero rather than a subject of legal scrutiny. This is a predetermined moral narrative.

"‘We will support him to the day we die’"

✕ Framing by Emphasis [9/10]: The article minimises the war crimes charges by placing them at the end and offering no exploration of their substance, instead emphasising Roberts-Smith’s charitable actions. This is selective emphasis to shape perception.

"Roberts-Smith has been charged with five counts of war crime murder... He was released on bail on April 17 after 10 days in custody."

✕ Narrative Framing [8/10]: The narrative reduces a complex story involving serious legal and ethical questions to a binary of 'supporters vs. smears', ignoring nuance or systemic issues.

"Everyone talks about the military side of things, there have been attempts to smear him over his private life too, but what’s missing is who he really is"