Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

4
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
76% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
2026 — Donald Trump — State of the Union — In Person | Roll Call Factba.se
Roll Call Factba.se

2026 — Donald Trump — State of the Union — In Person | Roll Call Factba.se

Full transcript of Donald Trump's State of the Union on February 24, 2026 (10,617 words). In Person.

By Donald Trump
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the footer is a standard legal notice identifying FiscalNote’s ownership of CQ and Roll Call. The critical view flags a subtle authority appeal in the phrase “leading provider of political and business risk solutions,” while the supportive view sees the same language as neutral boilerplate. Weighing the evidence, the manipulative element is minimal and does not rise to a high‑risk level.

Key Points

  • The footer’s wording is factual and matches typical copyright boilerplates used by news sites.
  • The phrase positioning FiscalNote as a “leading provider” could be read as a soft authority cue, but it is commonplace in corporate disclosures.
  • Both perspectives note the lack of emotive, urgent, or coercive language, indicating low persuasive intent.
  • Uniform branding across FiscalNote properties may reinforce brand presence, yet this is a standard practice rather than a deceptive tactic.

Further Investigation

  • Examine whether FiscalNote’s footers on other properties contain additional persuasive language beyond the standard legal notice.
  • Survey readers to gauge whether the authority phrasing influences perceived credibility of the articles.
  • Compare this footer to industry‑wide standards for media copyright notices to confirm its typicality.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The passage does not present a choice between two extreme options; it offers no decision points at all.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The text does not create an "us vs. them" narrative; it merely states corporate affiliation.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
No good‑vs‑evil framing or oversimplified storyline is present; the content is a straightforward attribution.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches found no recent news event or upcoming political milestone that this footer could be timed to distract from or amplify; the 2026 copyright date appears unrelated to current timelines.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The wording matches standard corporate copyright notices and does not resemble documented propaganda techniques from historic disinformation campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
The passage simply identifies corporate ownership and does not promote a product, policy, or candidate that would benefit a specific financial or political actor.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No language suggests that “everyone” believes or is doing something; the statement is isolated and factual.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
There is no urgency or pressure to change opinion quickly, nor any evidence of coordinated amplification that would push rapid public shifts.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
While other FiscalNote‑owned outlets use a similar boilerplate, each presents it in its own format, suggesting shared branding rather than a coordinated inauthentic campaign.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
The statement is a simple factual claim without argumentative structure, so no logical fallacies are evident.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities are cited beyond the corporate name itself, which is factual rather than an appeal to authority.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
No data or statistics are presented, so no selective presentation occurs.
Framing Techniques 2/5
The language is neutral and standard legal framing; there is no biased wording that steers interpretation.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics are mentioned or labeled; the text does not attempt to silence opposing views.
Context Omission 2/5
The disclaimer is complete for its purpose; there are no omitted facts that would change its meaning.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No extraordinary or shocking claims are made; the statement is a routine legal disclaimer.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
The content does not repeat any emotionally charged words or phrases; it is a single factual sentence.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is expressed or implied; the language is neutral and factual.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no request for the reader to act immediately or change behavior; the passage is purely informational.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The text contains no fear‑inducing, guilt‑laden, or outrage‑driven language; it merely states ownership and a copyright claim.
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else