What we know so far about the Bondi shooting.

[ 14/12/2025 10:28 ] Read on brisbanetimes.com.au

Report Overview: The text is short, mostly factual, and descriptive. It reports observable events (police arrival time, sounds of gunshots, people running, visual description of shooters, casualty count) without evident bias, speculation, or emotional language. There is a minor issue of potential lack of context (e.g., no sourcing or clarification that details are preliminary), but no clear manipulative techniques from the provided list are strongly present.

Sides Objectivity Scores

General public / victims (92)

Police / authorities (92)

Alleged shooters (90)

Sides Representation Balance

Favored Side

General public / victims

Caution! Due to inherent human biases, it may seem that reports on articles aligning with our views are crafted by opponents. Conversely, reports about articles that contradict our beliefs might seem to be authored by allies. However, such perceptions are likely to be incorrect. These impressions can be caused by the fact that in both scenarios, articles are subjected to critical evaluation. This report is the product of an AI model that is significantly less biased than human analyses and has been explicitly instructed to strictly maintain 100% neutrality.

Nevertheless, HonestyMeter is in the experimental stage and is continuously improving through user feedback. If the report seems inaccurate, we encourage you to submit feedback , helping us enhance the accuracy and reliability of HonestyMeter and contributing to media transparency.

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out important context that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article provides only a brief snapshot of the incident (time, location, basic description of shooters, casualty count) and then jumps to the question, "Was there an event being held at the time?" without clarifying that information is preliminary, what the sources are, or what is still unknown. This can unintentionally give an impression of completeness when the situation is still developing.

Explicitly state that the information is preliminary and may change as authorities confirm details (e.g., "According to early reports from police and witnesses, details are still emerging.").

Identify sources for key claims (e.g., "Residents reported...", "Police have confirmed that ten people have died...").

Clarify what is not yet known (e.g., "It is not yet clear whether an organised event was taking place at the time of the shooting.").

Unsubstantiated claims

Presenting statements as facts without clearly indicating their source or level of confirmation.

Phrases such as "Ten people were confirmed to have died" and "Vision shows at least two men clad in black firing what appeared to be rifles" are presented as facts, but the article does not specify who confirmed the deaths (police, hospital, officials) or where the vision comes from (CCTV, social media, news footage). While these may be accurate, the lack of attribution makes them less verifiable.

Attribute casualty figures to a clear source (e.g., "Police have confirmed that ten people have died...").

Clarify the origin of the footage (e.g., "Video obtained by local media shows at least two men...").

Use cautious language where appropriate (e.g., "appears to show" and note that authorities are still verifying the footage).

Spread the Truth

Share Report!

- This is an EXPERIMENTAL DEMO version that is not intended to be used for any other purpose than to showcase the technology's potential. We are in the process of developing more sophisticated algorithms to significantly enhance the reliability and consistency of evaluations. Nevertheless, even in its current state, HonestyMeter frequently offers valuable insights that are challenging for humans to detect.