WA news LIVE: Dodgy barbers, gift shops targeted in WA illicit tobacco blitz. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Biased language

Use of value-laden or pejorative wording that frames one side negatively without providing evidence within the text.

The headline and opening line: "Dodgy barber shops, gift shops and clothing stores are the latest to be targeted by authorities in WA’s tobacco wars." The word "dodgy" is a pejorative descriptor that presumes wrongdoing or untrustworthiness before presenting any specific evidence about individual businesses.

3 suggestions

Replace "Dodgy barber shops, gift shops and clothing stores" with a neutral description such as "Some barber shops, gift shops and clothing stores" or "Certain barber shops, gift shops and clothing stores under investigation".

Clarify that alleged wrongdoing is based on specific findings, e.g., "Barber shops, gift shops and clothing stores found to be selling illicit tobacco products" if that is supported by evidence.

Avoid colloquial, judgmental language in the headline and lead; use formal, descriptive terms that do not prejudge all businesses in those categories.

Sensationalism

Use of dramatic or emotionally charged framing to make the story seem more extreme or exciting than the facts alone warrant.

The phrase "WA’s tobacco wars" in the opening sentence: "...targeted by authorities in WA’s tobacco wars." This war metaphor dramatizes routine enforcement activity and can exaggerate the sense of conflict.

3 suggestions

Replace "WA’s tobacco wars" with a more precise and neutral phrase such as "WA’s illicit tobacco enforcement efforts" or "WA’s crackdown on illicit tobacco".

Explain the broader policy or enforcement context briefly instead of relying on a metaphor, e.g., "as part of an ongoing statewide campaign against illicit tobacco sales".

Avoid militaristic or conflict-based metaphors unless they are directly quoted from a source and clearly attributed.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant context or perspectives that would help readers fully understand the situation.

The article only presents the enforcement perspective and seizure statistics. It does not include: - Any response or comment from the targeted businesses or their representatives. - Clarification on whether all 45 outlets were found to be in violation, or only some. - Legal outcomes (charges, fines, or ongoing investigations) beyond temporary closures. This omission can lead readers to assume all targeted businesses were definitively guilty and that enforcement actions were uncontroversial.

3 suggestions

Add information on how many of the 45 outlets were actually found to be selling illicit products, and how many were cleared, if known.

Include comments or an opportunity to respond from at least one affected business, a business association, or a legal representative, or explicitly state that they were contacted but declined to comment.

Provide brief context on the legal process following such seizures (e.g., whether charges have been laid, whether investigations are ongoing, and what rights businesses have to appeal closures).

Unbalanced reporting

Presenting one side’s perspective or information while giving little or no space to other relevant sides.

The article relies solely on information from the Australian Border Force and describes enforcement actions and quantities seized. There is no representation of the businesses’ perspective, potential disputes about the seizures, or any broader debate about enforcement methods or regulations.

3 suggestions

Include at least one quote or paraphrased statement from a representative of the affected sectors (e.g., small business council, retail association, or an individual shop owner) to balance the enforcement narrative.

If no business was willing to comment, explicitly state this (e.g., "Several businesses declined to comment"), so readers understand that an attempt at balance was made.

Add brief context on any public or industry concerns about illicit tobacco enforcement (e.g., impact on small businesses, compliance complexity) if such concerns exist and can be sourced.

Appeal to emotion

Using language or framing that aims to provoke an emotional reaction rather than inform through neutral facts.

The combination of "Dodgy" and "tobacco wars" in the opening line frames the story in a way that can provoke distrust and a sense of dramatic conflict, encouraging readers to feel hostility toward the businesses before detailed facts are presented.

3 suggestions

Use neutral descriptors for both sides, such as "retail outlets" and "enforcement campaign", instead of emotionally charged terms.

Lead with the factual enforcement outcome (e.g., quantities seized, number of outlets searched) and then provide context, rather than leading with emotive framing.

Ensure that any strong language is clearly attributed to a source (e.g., a quote from an official) rather than used by the reporter as narrative voice.