Daddy, father, prophet. 

Detected Manipulations & Suggested Changes

Sensationalism

Use of vivid or dramatic wording that can heighten emotional impact beyond what is strictly necessary to convey the facts.

1) Headline and subhead: "Daddy, father, prophet – Devoted flock had many titles for Pastor Kevin Smith". While based on testimony, the framing emphasises the cult-like reverence in a dramatic way. 2) Description: "sacrificial-type killing" and details such as "watched him bleed out and subsequently requested that his body be placed inside a fowl coop". These are graphic and dramatic; they may be accurate but are presented without clarifying that this is alleged behaviour within the context of testimony and prior reporting. Overall, these elements can increase shock value and emotional response, even though they are grounded in the case facts.

4 suggestions

Clarify attribution in the headline and subhead, for example: "Witness: Congregants called Pastor Kevin Smith ‘Daddy’, ‘Father’, ‘Prophet’" to emphasise that these are reported claims, not the outlet’s characterisation.

Qualify dramatic descriptions with clear attribution and legal status, e.g.: "Ruddock is being tried for murder in relation to what prosecutors describe as a ‘sacrificial-type’ killing…" or "…alleged sacrificial-type killing".

Consider slightly less graphic phrasing where not essential to understanding, for example: "…another man was reportedly killed and his body moved to a fowl coop, according to earlier police reports" instead of "watched him bleed out" unless that exact phrasing is crucial and directly quoted from testimony.

Add brief context that these details are part of ongoing court proceedings and that some facts are still contested, to reduce the impression of a lurid, closed narrative.

Omission of key information

Leaving out relevant contextual details that would help readers fully understand the status and reliability of the information.

The article reports serious allegations (e.g., that Smith ordered killings, that he shot the witness, that a congregant’s throat was cut on his instructions) but does not explicitly restate in this piece that Smith himself is deceased and was never tried, nor does it clearly distinguish which elements are established by prior official findings versus still-contested claims in this trial. It also does not briefly summarise the defence’s overarching theory of the case, beyond the specific cross-examination points.

4 suggestions

Add a short background paragraph early in the article clarifying: (a) that Kevin Smith died in 2021, (b) what has been officially established by prior investigations, and (c) what aspects remain allegations being explored in this trial.

Explicitly label key claims as allegations or testimony, e.g.: "The witness testified that…" or "According to earlier police reports…" rather than narrating them as settled fact.

Include one or two sentences summarising the defence’s general position in the case (for example, whether they dispute the witness’s credibility, the nature of Ruddock’s role, or the characterisation of events), so readers understand that the narrative is contested.

Where the article references prior events (e.g., other deaths at the church), briefly note the official status of those cases (investigations, inquests, charges) to give readers a clearer picture of what is known versus alleged.

Unbalanced reporting

Providing more space or detail to one side’s narrative than to others, which can subtly favour that side even without overt bias.

The article gives detailed, chronological coverage of the witness’s account and the specific questions asked by defence attorney Anthony Williams. However, it does not provide any broader explanation of the defence’s theory of the case or any statements from Ruddock himself (if available), nor does it include comment from prosecutors beyond their role in calling the witness. The result is that readers get a rich picture of the witness’s story and some attempts at impeachment, but not a clear sense of how the defence interprets the events overall.

4 suggestions

Add a concise paragraph summarising the defence’s main arguments in this trial (for example: that Ruddock acted under duress, that he denies certain actions, or that he disputes the witness’s credibility), based on prior court sessions or filings.

Where possible, include any statements made by Ruddock in court or through his attorneys that present his perspective, clearly attributed.

Similarly, add a brief line summarising the prosecution’s overarching case theory, so that both sides’ positions are framed at a comparable level of abstraction, not just through one witness’s testimony.

If space is limited, signal that this is one instalment in ongoing coverage and link or refer to previous articles that more fully outline both sides’ positions.

Appeal to emotion

Use of emotionally charged details that may influence readers’ feelings more than their understanding of the facts.

Phrases such as "sacrificial-type killing", "whose throat was cut at the church", and "watched him bleed out and subsequently requested that his body be placed inside a fowl coop" are highly emotive and graphic. While they may be factually accurate and relevant to the case, the way they are presented—without explicit attribution or contextual framing—can strongly evoke horror and disgust, potentially shaping readers’ judgments about all involved beyond the evidentiary purpose.

4 suggestions

Maintain necessary factual detail but pair it with clear attribution, e.g.: "Prosecutors allege that…" or "The witness testified that…" to remind readers these are claims within a legal process.

Where possible, avoid unnecessary repetition of the most graphic elements; state them once clearly and then refer back in more neutral terms (e.g., "the killing" or "the incident").

Consider adding a brief note that the article contains disturbing details, which signals editorial awareness of the emotional impact and frames the content as part of serious court reporting rather than shock content.

Balance graphic details with procedural context (charges, legal standards, status of the trial) so that readers’ focus is on understanding the case rather than only reacting emotionally.