Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

9
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
67% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Hund i OL-løypa: – Jeg ble redd
VG

Hund i OL-løypa: – Jeg ble redd

Sverige var overlegne og Norge gikk trygt videre. Men kvaliken til lagsprinten i OL vil huskes for noe helt annet.

By Mikal Emil Aaserud; Herman Folvik; Bjørn S Delebekk
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the article is a light‑hearted, factual recount of a dog entering an Olympic ski course, with no overt persuasion or urgent calls to action. While the critical view notes minor emotional language and omitted context, the supportive view highlights the presence of multiple quotes and an expert source, suggesting ordinary news reporting. Weighing the evidence, the content shows only minimal manipulation risk, supporting a low manipulation score.

Key Points

  • The article includes direct quotes from athletes, a commentator, and a dog‑school instructor, indicating standard reporting practice.
  • Both perspectives observe the absence of urgent calls to action, sensational language, or divisive framing.
  • The critical perspective points out missing contextual details (owner, race‑organiser response) that could improve completeness but does not constitute deception.
  • Overall manipulation cues are weak; the supportive perspective’s emphasis on balanced sourcing strengthens the credibility assessment.

Further Investigation

  • Identify the dog’s owner and any statements they provided
  • Obtain an official response from race organisers regarding safety protocols
  • Verify the video source and any additional eyewitness accounts to confirm the event’s details

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The text does not present a binary choice or force readers into an either/or decision.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
No us‑vs‑them framing is present; athletes from several nations are quoted without assigning blame or creating division.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The story is a straightforward recounting of an odd incident, lacking a broader good‑vs‑evil storyline.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches revealed no recent major news that this story could distract from, nor any upcoming political event it would prime for; the timing appears incidental.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The narrative does not match documented propaganda patterns such as false flag claims, geopolitical blame‑shifting, or coordinated state‑sponsored narratives.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
The article does not promote any product, party, or candidate, and no financial beneficiary can be identified from the content or its publication venue.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The piece does not suggest that “everyone” believes the story or that readers should join a prevailing opinion.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
There is no evidence of a sudden push for the audience to change views quickly; the article is a static report without urgency cues.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only this outlet published the story; no other media or social accounts reproduced the same wording, suggesting no coordinated messaging.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The piece contains a minor appeal to anecdotal evidence (“I saw a video on Instagram”) but does not draw illogical conclusions from it.
Authority Overload 1/5
Only a few named experts (NRK commentator Jann Post, former skier Anders Aukland) are cited, but they are not presented as overwhelming authorities to validate the story.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The article highlights only the anecdotal reactions of a few athletes, ignoring any broader data about animal incidents on ski courses.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The language frames the incident as quirky and surprising (“det er så rart, men den er jo så søt!”) rather than threatening, using informal, conversational tone.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics or alternative viewpoints are mentioned, nor are dissenting voices labeled negatively.
Context Omission 3/5
Key details such as the exact location, the dog's owner, or official race‑organizer response are omitted, leaving the account incomplete.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The claim that a dog appeared on an Olympic course is presented as a simple anecdote without exaggerated “never‑seen‑before” framing.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional words appear only once or twice (e.g., “rart,” “sykt”) and are not repeatedly reinforced throughout the article.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is generated; athletes merely comment on the oddity, and the tone remains neutral.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no direct call for readers to act immediately; the piece is purely descriptive of the incident.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The text uses mild surprise language such as “merkelig syn” (strange sight) and “sykt” (crazy) but does not invoke strong fear, guilt, or outrage.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Repetition Whataboutism, Straw Men, Red Herring
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else