Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

5
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Vi har funnet 20 prisbelønte gründere og startuper, for hvor er de i dag?
finansavisen.no

Vi har funnet 20 prisbelønte gründere og startuper, for hvor er de i dag?

Vi har funnet 20 prisbelønte gründere og startuper. Hvor er de i dag? +

By Margrethe Schmidt Hegnar
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the article is a straightforward, fact‑based overview of prize‑winning Norwegian entrepreneurs, using neutral language and lacking overt emotional triggers or calls to action. The evidence cited by each side reinforces this view, leading to a conclusion that manipulation is minimal.

Key Points

  • Both analyses note the neutral, descriptive tone and absence of fear‑inducing or urgent language
  • Both point out clear attribution (e.g., photo credit) and factual statements about the entrepreneurs
  • Neither perspective identifies a clear beneficiary or agenda beyond informing readers
  • The selective focus on 20 founders is acknowledged but not framed as biased or manipulative

Further Investigation

  • Verify whether the article appears in other outlets with identical wording, which could indicate coordinated amplification
  • Check the broader editorial context to see if similar profiles are regularly published, confirming a pattern of neutral reporting
  • Examine any hidden sponsorship or advertising disclosures that might reveal a financial beneficiary

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The piece does not present only two extreme options; it simply reports on the status of twenty individuals.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The article does not frame any group as "us vs. them"; it treats all featured entrepreneurs uniformly without adversarial language.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
The narrative is straightforward – a follow‑up on past winners – without a good‑vs‑evil dichotomy or moral simplification.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches showed the piece was posted on 27‑Feb‑2026 without correlation to any breaking news or political event, indicating organic timing rather than strategic placement.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The format matches standard journalistic profiles, not the tactics documented in historic propaganda campaigns such as the Russian IRA’s “false flag” narratives.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No evidence was found that the article serves a financial or political agenda; it simply profiles individuals, and no sponsor or beneficiary is identified.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The text does not claim that everyone believes the information; it merely presents a list of entrepreneurs, lacking statements like "everyone knows".
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No hashtags, bot amplification, or influencer pushes were detected; the discourse around the article is limited and gradual, not a rapid push for belief change.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only the originating outlet carried the story; no other sites published identical phrasing or coordinated messaging, suggesting no orchestrated campaign.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The content does not contain obvious fallacies; it presents facts without drawing unwarranted conclusions or false cause‑effect links.
Authority Overload 1/5
No expert opinions or authority figures are quoted beyond the simple identification of Johan Brand; the text does not overload the reader with questionable authority claims.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The selection of twenty prize‑winning founders could be seen as selective, but the article does not provide comparative data to suggest bias; it simply highlights a subset of past winners.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The headline "20 prisbelønte gründere: Hvor er de i dag?" frames the story as a curiosity piece, which is a typical journalistic framing rather than a manipulative bias.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
There is no mention of critics or dissenting voices, nor any labeling of opposing viewpoints.
Context Omission 3/5
While the article lists the entrepreneurs, it omits detailed outcomes for many of them, offering only brief status updates, which may leave readers without a full picture of their successes or failures.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The article presents ordinary updates on past prize‑winners; no sensational or unprecedented claims such as "shocking revelation" appear.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional triggers are absent; the content repeats only factual information about entrepreneurs, not feelings like outrage or fear.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is generated; the language is descriptive, e.g., "Hvor er de i dag?" which is a neutral inquiry.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no demand for immediate action; the piece simply states that the authors "har funnet frem til 20 tidligere prisbelønte nordmenn" for a retrospective look.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The text is factual and neutral, e.g., "INVESTOR: Johan Brand var med på å starte Kahoot. I dag er han investor," without fear‑inducing or guilt‑laden language.

Identified Techniques

Name Calling, Labeling Loaded Language Doubt Repetition Slogans
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else