Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

11
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
66% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Sandra Borch dømt til fengsel – kan slippe soning
Aftenposten

Sandra Borch dømt til fengsel – kan slippe soning

Den tidligere statsråden og stortingspolitikeren fra Sp erkjente å ha kjørt med promille to ganger i høst.

By Herman Osnes Opdal; NTB
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives agree that the article about Sandra Borch’s DUI conviction is largely factual, relies on official court and police sources, and contains minimal emotive or persuasive language, indicating low levels of manipulation.

Key Points

  • Both analyses note neutral language and reliance on verifiable authorities (court, police).
  • The article includes a direct, unembellished quote from Borch expressing remorse, which limits emotional manipulation.
  • Neither perspective identifies calls to action, fear appeals, or tribal framing, supporting a low manipulation rating.
  • The supportive perspective emphasizes the timing and procedural nature of the report, while the critical perspective points out the omission of broader context but sees it as informational rather than deceptive.

Further Investigation

  • Confirm the original publication source and date to ensure no later editorial changes.
  • Compare this report with other Norwegian news outlets covering the same event for consistency of facts and framing.
  • Examine whether any omitted contextual information (e.g., DUI statistics) could affect perception of the story’s completeness.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
The article does not present only two extreme options; it simply outlines the court’s decision and the conditions attached.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The text does not frame the issue as an ‘us vs. them’ battle; it treats the incident as an individual legal matter.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The narrative is straightforward: a politician was convicted for DUI and faces specific penalties. No broader good‑vs‑evil storyline is constructed.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Search shows the article was published immediately after the court ruling, with no larger news event to distract from or prime for; the timing appears purely procedural.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The content does not echo known propaganda patterns such as state‑run smear campaigns or corporate astroturf; it aligns with ordinary reporting of political scandals in Norway.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No party, corporation, or campaign is shown to benefit financially or politically; the coverage is standard news reporting on a public official’s legal case.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The article does not suggest that “everyone” believes something or that the reader should join a prevailing opinion; it simply states the facts.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Social‑media activity shows a normal, short‑lived spike in discussion without evidence of coordinated pressure to change opinions quickly.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Multiple Norwegian outlets reported the same core facts and used similar phrasing, which is typical of news‑wire sharing rather than coordinated messaging; each source adds its own editorial spin.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The reasoning is linear: Borch was found guilty, therefore she receives a sentence. No fallacious arguments (e.g., straw man, ad hominem) are present.
Authority Overload 1/5
No questionable experts are cited; the only authority referenced is the court and the police, which are legitimate sources.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The article focuses on the conviction and penalties but does not provide statistics on DUI rates among politicians or the general population, which could have offered comparative perspective.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The story uses neutral framing, describing the legal process and Borch’s own remorse without loaded adjectives or bias‑laden language.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
There is no labeling of critics or suppression of alternative viewpoints; the article reports statements from Borch and facts from law enforcement.
Context Omission 3/5
While the piece mentions the conviction and penalties, it omits broader context such as any prior offenses, the political impact within the Centre Party, or details of the rehabilitation program, leaving some background unanswered.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The story presents a routine legal outcome; no extraordinary or unprecedented claims are made.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional language appears only once in Borch’s personal apology; the article does not repeatedly invoke the same feeling.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is manufactured; the piece reports verified facts without exaggeration or sensationalism.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no call for readers to take immediate action; the piece simply reports the court decision and the conditions of the sentence.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The article includes a brief quote from Borch expressing shame – “Jeg føler sånn skam og skyld for det jeg har gjort” – but the language remains factual and does not employ strong fear, outrage, or guilt triggers.

Identified Techniques

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