ICAC Operation Rosny LIVE updates: Jeremy Greenwood returns to witness box as investigation enters seventh week. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Omission of key information

Leaving out important contextual details that would help readers fully understand the situation or evaluate competing claims.

Examples: 1) "Charles Perrottet denied suggestions from Peggy Dwyer, SC, that he repeatedly gave false evidence under oath and encourage his wife Anita to do the same." - The article does not explain what specific evidence or contradictions underpin Dwyer’s suggestion that he gave false evidence. 2) "Dwyer suggested that Charles and Anita Perrottet ‘outsmarted’ themselves by not getting their stories straight, after the couple gave conflicting evidence about payments received by Anita’s company, Macquarie Consulting." - The nature and extent of the conflicting evidence is not described, nor is any explanation from the Perrottets beyond a brief denial. 3) "Phone tap recordings played to the ICAC showed Jean Nassif bragging about influence he believed he had in the state government, including that Dominic Perrottet was his ‘boy’, at the same time Charles Perrottet was giving him updates about the success of the right faction of the Liberal Party. Perrottet denied ever offering political outcomes in exchange for payments." - The article does not clarify whether ICAC or counsel drew any explicit link between the bragging and actual influence, or whether any corroborating evidence exists. 4) "The ICAC heard that Charles Perrottet was aware that Sharangan Maheswaran was leaking damaging stories about David Chandler to a journalist, and said, ‘great, we are close’ when told an article was being published." - No context is given about the content or accuracy of the ‘damaging stories’, or whether they were legitimate whistleblowing or improper leaks.

5 suggestions

Add brief descriptions of the specific contradictions or documentary evidence that led counsel assisting to suggest that Charles and Anita Perrottet gave false evidence, so readers can assess the strength of the allegation.

Include more detail on what exactly the conflicting evidence about Macquarie Consulting payments was (e.g., dates, amounts, who said what), and any explanations offered by the Perrottets beyond a simple denial.

Clarify whether ICAC or counsel presented any evidence that Jean Nassif’s claims of influence were substantiated, or whether they were treated as self-aggrandizing talk; explicitly state if no finding has been made.

Provide context on the ‘damaging stories’ about David Chandler: what they alleged, whether they were investigated, and whether any findings supported or rejected those allegations.

Where possible, indicate the procedural status (e.g., ‘the inquiry is ongoing and no findings of corrupt conduct have been made against any person mentioned’).

Framing effect / Availability heuristic

Presenting information in a way that emphasizes certain details (often negative or dramatic) so they become more salient in the reader’s mind, potentially skewing perception without explicitly stating a conclusion.

The excerpt consistently foregrounds incriminating or suggestive elements: - "Dwyer suggested that Charles and Anita Perrottet ‘outsmarted’ themselves by not getting their stories straight..." – The colorful phrase ‘outsmarted themselves’ is highlighted without balancing language or alternative framing from the defence. - "Phone tap recordings ... showed Jean Nassif bragging about influence he believed he had in the state government, including that Dominic Perrottet was his ‘boy’..." – The quote ‘his boy’ is striking and memorable, but the article does not balance it with any clarification that this is Nassif’s claim, not an established fact of influence. - "The ICAC heard that Charles Perrottet was aware that Sharangan Maheswaran was leaking damaging stories about David Chandler... and said, ‘great, we are close’..." – The word ‘damaging’ and the celebratory quote ‘great, we are close’ are presented without nuance about whether the stories were true or part of legitimate scrutiny. These choices make the negative implications more cognitively available to readers, even though the text technically attributes them to what was ‘heard’ or ‘suggested’ at ICAC.

4 suggestions

Explicitly and repeatedly signal that these are allegations and evidence being tested, not findings, for example: ‘Counsel assisting alleged that…’ or ‘Phone taps played to the inquiry captured Nassif claiming…’

Balance vivid or loaded quotes (e.g., ‘outsmarted themselves’, ‘his boy’, ‘great, we are close’) with neutral paraphrases and, where available, responses or alternative interpretations from those implicated.

Add clarifying phrases such as ‘Nassif’s untested claim’, ‘according to counsel assisting’, or ‘ICAC has not made any findings on these matters’ to reduce the risk that readers treat the most dramatic quotes as established fact.

Where possible, include any exculpatory or mitigating evidence presented in the same session, so the narrative is not dominated by only the most damaging-sounding material.

Biased language (mild, via quoted rhetoric)

Use of loaded or emotive wording that can influence perception, even when technically attributed to a speaker.

The article itself uses mostly neutral language, but it prominently features loaded phrases from participants without much neutralizing context: - "‘outsmarted’ themselves by not getting their stories straight" – This is a rhetorically charged way of describing inconsistent testimony. - "bragging about influence he believed he had" – ‘Bragging’ is somewhat evaluative; ‘claimed’ or ‘boasted’ would be slightly more neutral, and the focus on ‘influence’ without context can imply wrongdoing. - "leaking damaging stories" – ‘Damaging’ is value-laden; it suggests harm rather than simply ‘critical’ or ‘alleging misconduct’ stories. While these are partly accurate reflections of what was said, the selection and repetition of such terms can subtly bias readers against the individuals mentioned.

4 suggestions

Where possible, paraphrase highly rhetorical phrases into more neutral descriptions, while still noting that such language was used. For example: ‘Dwyer argued that the couple had not aligned their accounts’ instead of ‘outsmarted themselves by not getting their stories straight’, with the original phrase included once in quotation marks and clearly attributed.

Replace or qualify evaluative verbs like ‘bragging’ with more neutral alternatives such as ‘stated’ or ‘claimed’, unless the tone is itself directly relevant and clearly explained.

Clarify ‘damaging stories’ by specifying whether they were ‘critical stories alleging X and Y’ or ‘unsubstantiated negative claims’, so readers understand the nature of the material rather than only its impact.

Ensure that when loaded language is quoted, it is clearly attributed and, where appropriate, counterbalanced with the subject’s response or denial.

Unbalanced reporting (mild, within the excerpt)

Presenting more detail or emphasis on one side’s allegations or incriminating evidence than on the responses or exculpatory material from the other side.

Throughout the excerpt, the allegations and incriminating-sounding evidence are described with some detail, while the denials or explanations are brief and less developed: - Allegation: detailed description of conflicting evidence about payments to Macquarie Consulting and the suggestion that the couple ‘outsmarted’ themselves. Response: "Charles Perrottet denied this, and said he may not have told his wife about the arrangement..." – a short, less detailed explanation. - Allegation: phone taps with Nassif ‘bragging’ about influence and calling Dominic Perrottet his ‘boy’ while receiving updates on factional success. Response: "Perrottet denied ever offering political outcomes in exchange for payments." – again, a brief denial without elaboration. - Allegation: awareness of ‘leaking damaging stories’ and saying ‘great, we are close’. Response: no further explanation or context from Perrottet is provided in this excerpt. This creates a tilt where the reader is exposed more to the incriminating narrative than to the defence or alternative interpretations.

4 suggestions

Include more of the defence’s explanations where available, such as any detailed reasons Charles Perrottet gave for inconsistencies or for his communications with Nassif and Maheswaran.

If the defence challenged the interpretation of the phone taps or the characterization of the leaks, summarize those challenges alongside the allegations.

Add a sentence noting that the inquiry is ongoing and that those named deny wrongdoing, if that reflects the broader context.

Where space is limited, explicitly acknowledge that only a subset of the day’s evidence is being reported and that other evidence, including material favorable to those named, was also heard.