Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

8
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
71% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Krimpodden: Slik kunne Viggo Kristiansen bli uriktig dømt
VG

Krimpodden: Slik kunne Viggo Kristiansen bli uriktig dømt

Hør Krimpodden her.

By Christina Quist
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the passage is a brief announcement for a podcast episode about the Baneheia report, with a disclosed two‑week free trial for the Podme service. The critical view flags the commercial self‑interest and the absence of substantive detail as potential manipulation cues, while the supportive view emphasizes the neutral tone, clear attribution to reputable journalists, and transparent marketing disclosure. Weighing the evidence, the content shows limited manipulative intent and is largely informational, suggesting a low manipulation score.

Key Points

  • The passage contains a clear commercial call‑to‑action ("Test i to uker gratis"), indicating self‑interest but is openly disclosed.
  • No substantive information about the Baneheia report is provided, leaving the audience without context.
  • The hosts are identified as reputable journalists (VG crime commentator Øystein Milli and presenter Tor‑Erling Thømt Ruud), offering external attribution.
  • The language is factual and lacks emotive or urgent framing, reducing manipulative pressure.

Further Investigation

  • Review the actual podcast episode to assess whether it presents balanced analysis of the Baneheia report.
  • Verify the credentials and recent work of Øystein Milli and Tor‑Erling Thømt Ruud to confirm their authority on the subject.
  • Examine audience reception data to see if the promotional framing influences perception of the report.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choice is presented; the reader is not forced to pick between two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The passage does not set up an "us vs. them" narrative; it merely mentions two commentators and a criminal case without assigning blame to a group.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The description is straightforward, lacking a good‑vs‑evil framing; it merely notes that the hosts discuss a report.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches found no coinciding news event that this post could be diverting attention from, nor any upcoming election or hearing that it appears to prime for; the timing therefore seems ordinary.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The short promotional format does not match known propaganda playbooks such as the Russian IRA or Chinese state‑media disinformation patterns; it lacks the repetitive, conspiratorial, or demonising motifs typical of those campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
The only identifiable benefit is commercial: the line "Test i to uker gratis" promotes the Podme streaming service, suggesting a modest affiliate or advertising motive, but no political beneficiary is evident.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The text does not claim that "everyone" is listening or that the audience must join a majority; it simply informs about the podcast availability.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
There is no pressure to change opinion quickly, no trending hashtag, and no evidence of bots or coordinated pushes; the content is static and informational.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only the original source (VG) carries this wording; no other media outlets or social‑media accounts were found publishing the same phrasing, indicating no coordinated messaging.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
No argumentative fallacies are present; the passage is purely descriptive and promotional.
Authority Overload 1/5
The only authorities cited are the commentators themselves; no questionable experts or excessive credential appeals are used.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The content highlights the existence of the podcast and a free trial but does not present any data or statistics to support a claim, so selective data presentation is not evident.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The language is neutral, using terms like "går gjennom rapporten" and "Test i to uker gratis" without loaded adjectives that would bias interpretation.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No critics are mentioned or labeled; the text does not attempt to silence alternative viewpoints.
Context Omission 3/5
While the snippet references a report, it does not provide details of the report's findings, which could leave the audience without substantive context about the Baneheia investigation.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No extraordinary or unprecedented claims are made; the content merely references an existing podcast series and a legal report.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
The passage does not repeat emotionally charged words; it mentions the commentators and the podcast only once each.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is expressed, and the statement does not allege wrongdoing beyond the ordinary discussion of a criminal case.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no demand for immediate action; the only invitation is a standard "Test i to uker gratis" offer, which is not time‑critical.
Emotional Triggers 1/5
The text is factual and neutral; it simply states that Øystein Milli and Tor‑Erling Thømt Ruud discuss a report, without fear‑inducing or guilt‑laden language.

Identified Techniques

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