Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

20
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

Svenska Magasinet on X

Det är regionalval i Aragonien. När 82,81 procent av rösterna var räknade var mandatfördelningen följande: Partido Popular 26 PSOE 18 Vox 14 Chunta Aragonesista 6 Aragón Existe 2 Izquierda Unida (Sumar) 1 Partido Aragonés 0 #EleccionesAragón

Posted by Svenska Magasinet
View original →

Perspectives

Both teams agree the post shares raw seat counts from the Aragon election with a neutral tone and no overt emotional language. The red team flags the lack of broader context (turnout, vote‑share percentages, source attribution) as a subtle form of framing, while the blue team emphasizes the factual, timely nature of the message and its similarity to standard wire‑service reporting. Weighing the evidence, the content shows minimal manipulative intent, though the omissions reduce its completeness, leading to a low manipulation rating.

Key Points

  • The language is neutral and factual, lacking emotive or persuasive cues.
  • The post omits important contextual data such as voter turnout and vote‑share percentages, which could unintentionally shape perception.
  • Absence of source attribution limits credibility but does not constitute active manipulation.
  • Timing aligns with official result releases, supporting the view that the post is a routine informational update.

Further Investigation

  • Verify whether official sources (e.g., the Aragon electoral commission) published the same seat‑only format or included additional metrics like turnout and vote shares.
  • Check if the account posting the tweet has a history of providing complete election coverage or tends to share minimal data.
  • Assess audience reactions to determine whether the omission of context led to misinterpretations or speculation.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The text does not present only two exclusive options; it lists multiple parties and their seat totals.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
The list of parties (PP, PSOE, Vox, etc.) is factual; there is no explicit us‑vs‑them framing beyond the normal party competition description.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
The narrative reduces the election outcome to a simple seat count, omitting discussion of coalition dynamics or policy implications.
Timing Coincidence 2/5
The post appeared on the day the Aragon election results were officially released, matching the natural news cycle rather than a calculated attempt to distract from other events.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The straightforward reporting style does not echo known propaganda techniques or historic disinformation campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
The tweet does not endorse any party or organization, and no financial or political beneficiary can be identified from the wording.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The post does not suggest that ‘everyone’ agrees with a viewpoint or encourage conformity.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No urgency cues or pressure to change opinion are present; the content remains static and factual.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
While several outlets reported the same numbers with similar phrasing, this reflects standard wire‑service distribution rather than a coordinated manipulation effort.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
The statement is a straightforward factual report; however, presenting only seat totals without context could lead to an implied conclusion that the result is final and unchangeable, a subtle hasty‑generalization.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, analysts, or authoritative sources are quoted; the post relies solely on raw numbers.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Only the final seat distribution and a single percentage (82.81 %) are shown, leaving out total votes per party and other electoral metrics.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The language is neutral, but the choice to highlight the 82.81 % figure and the exact seat breakdown frames the election as a definitive outcome, subtly emphasizing the dominance of the listed parties.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
There is no mention of critics or opposition voices being silenced or labeled negatively.
Context Omission 4/5
Key contextual details such as overall voter turnout, coalition possibilities, and vote share percentages for each party are omitted, limiting full understanding of the result.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The content presents ordinary election results; no extraordinary or shocking claims are made.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
The message contains a single factual statement and does not repeat emotional triggers.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No language expresses anger or outrage, and the post does not frame the results as scandalous.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no request for readers to act quickly or change behavior; the post is purely informational.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The text simply states the vote share and seat numbers (e.g., “När 82,81 procent av rösterna var räknade …”) without fear‑inducing, guilt‑laden, or outrage‑provoking language.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Appeal to fear-prejudice Doubt Reductio ad hitlerum
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else