Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

11
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Mulig skyting ved Tønsberg stasjon: – Hørt smell
VG

Mulig skyting ved Tønsberg stasjon: – Hørt smell

Politiet er ute med patruljer i Tønsberg sentrum etter melding om mulig skyting ved togstasjonen.

By Kaja Marie Andreassen; Simone Holen Sønstrød; Einar Torkelsen
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives find the article to be a straightforward, neutral report that relies on multiple on‑scene sources and avoids emotive or persuasive language, indicating very low manipulation.

Key Points

  • Neutral, descriptive language dominates the text
  • Multiple independent witnesses (police spokesperson, freelance photographer, station employee) provide corroboration
  • The piece openly acknowledges an ongoing investigation and lacks definitive, sensational claims
  • No urgency cues, fear appeals, or group‑identity framing are present
  • Both analyses assign low manipulation scores (12‑13/100)

Further Investigation

  • Check official police incident logs for timestamps and details
  • Obtain and review any available video surveillance from the tunnel area
  • Follow up on subsequent reports regarding injuries, arrests, or legal outcomes

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
There is no presentation of only two extreme options; the narrative does not force a choice between competing outcomes.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
The article does not frame any group as “us vs. them”; it mentions “no signs of firearm use” and simply reports police statements.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The story avoids binary good‑vs‑evil framing; it presents a factual account with multiple perspectives (police, photographer, station employee).
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Search results show the report was published within hours of the incident (Feb 22 2026) and does not coincide with any larger news cycle, suggesting the timing is purely news‑driven.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The content lacks the hallmarks of known propaganda playbooks (e.g., demonising a foreign power, repeating conspiratorial slogans) and matches ordinary local news reporting.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No organization, politician or company stands to gain financially or politically; the article quotes only police officials and a freelance photographer, indicating no hidden agenda.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The piece does not claim that “everyone” believes something or use phrases like “as everyone knows”, so there is no bandwagon pressure.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No hashtags, trending topics, or calls for swift public response were identified; social media discussion remained minimal and organic.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
While several outlets reproduced the same core facts, each added unique local quotes and context, reflecting standard newswire distribution rather than a coordinated messaging operation.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The text does not contain obvious logical errors such as straw‑man arguments or slippery‑slope reasoning; it stays descriptive.
Authority Overload 1/5
Only one authority, the police operations leader Eskil Hagen Olsen, is cited; there is no over‑reliance on multiple “expert” opinions to overwhelm the reader.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The piece includes the available facts (time, lack of weapon evidence, number of people involved) without selectively omitting contradictory data, as the investigation is still open.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Language is largely neutral; words like “god del politi” (a good amount of police) are factual descriptors rather than loaded adjectives designed to shape perception.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No dissenting voices are mentioned or labeled; the article simply relays statements from officials and witnesses.
Context Omission 3/5
The report notes that investigations are ongoing and that video surveillance is being reviewed, indicating that some details (e.g., motive, exact number of participants) are still unknown.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The story presents a routine police incident; there are no claims of unprecedented danger or shocking revelations.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Emotional triggers appear only once (e.g., “smell” and “slåsskamp”), without repeated emphasis throughout the piece.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
There is no expression of outrage; the narrative sticks to factual reporting without blaming any group.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No sentence urges readers to act immediately; the article simply states police actions and that train traffic resumed.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The text uses neutral language; the only emotive phrase is “det var et smell” which merely reports a sound without invoking fear or guilt.

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