Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

22
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
72% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
X (Twitter)

OSINTdefender on X

In footage from the immediate aftermath of the shooting today in Minneapolis of 37-year-old Alex Jeffrey Pretti, agents with Border Patrol and Immigration & Customs Enforcement (ICE) can be seen searching for a gun, with one clearly stating, “Where’s the gun?” The agent in grey… pic.twitter.com/3Srs

Posted by OSINTdefender
View original →

Perspectives

Blue Team's analysis is stronger due to emphasis on verifiable video evidence and neutral factual reporting, outweighing Red Team's concerns about subtle framing and omissions, which rely more on interpretation than direct proof. The content leans credible but with minor risks from incompleteness.

Key Points

  • Both teams agree the content directly references observable footage and quotes, supporting transparency.
  • Blue Team evidence of checkable details (video link, specific identifiers) demonstrates stronger verifiability than Red Team's interpretive claims of framing.
  • Red Team validly notes potential asymmetry in humanization and omissions, but these do not override the neutral tone.
  • No evidence of overt manipulation tactics like urgency or calls to action, aligning more with Blue perspective.
  • Content's incompleteness creates mild suspicion but is common in initial reporting.

Further Investigation

  • Full incident context: Prior events leading to shooting, justification for use of force, and official reports.
  • Gun recovery details: Was the gun found? Bodycam or additional footage confirming search outcomes.
  • Cross-verification: Broader media coverage, agency statements, or eyewitness accounts for balance.
  • Amplification patterns: Social media spread and coordination among sharers.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No presentation of only two extreme options; merely highlights one detail from footage.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Slight us-vs-them via federal agents (Border Patrol/ICE) searching a civilian's aftermath, implying potential overreach without explicit tribal language.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
No good-vs-evil framing; factual report of agents searching omits moral judgments.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Timing appears organic as content emerged immediately after the January 24, 2026, shooting amid Minneapolis immigration operations; searches revealed no suspicious correlations with other major events in the past 72 hours.
Historical Parallels 2/5
Minor superficial resemblance to past police shooting aftermath videos questioning weapons, but web and X searches found no strong ties to known propaganda techniques or campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Vague alignment with anti-federal enforcement views echoed by Democrats like Mayor Frey and Rep. Horsford criticizing the incident, but no evidence of specific beneficiaries, funding, or disguised operations from searches.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
No claims that 'everyone agrees' or peer pressure; presents footage observationally without invoking consensus.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 3/5
Moderate pressure from rapid protests and X amplification post-shooting, as searches show immediate outrage spread, but no extreme demands for instant belief change.
Phrase Repetition 3/5
Moderate alignment as multiple sources like MPR News and Instagram shared the exact footage and “Where’s the gun?” quote hours after the event, per search results, suggesting shared video rather than verbatim coordination.
Logical Fallacies 1/5
No flawed reasoning; descriptive without arguments or conclusions drawn.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts or authorities cited; relies solely on unnamed agents' quote.
Cherry-Picked Data 1/5
Selectively focuses on post-shooting search footage without full incident video or outcomes.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Biased word choices like 'searching for a gun' and highlighting “Where’s the gun?” imply doubt, framing agents as disorganized post-shooting.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No labeling of critics or alternative views; does not address counter-narratives.
Context Omission 4/5
Omits key context like the victim's permit, gun recovery (Sig Sauer P320 found), prior scuffle, and self-defense claims by authorities.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No claims of 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' events; simply reports 'footage from the immediate aftermath' as factual observation.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
No repeated emotional triggers; single quote “Where’s the gun?” used once without hammering fear or outrage.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage expressed; factual description of agents searching lacks hyperbolic condemnation disconnected from facts.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
No demands for immediate action; content neutrally describes footage without calls to protest, share, or respond urgently.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Mild implication of confusion via agents' quote “Where’s the gun?” raises subtle suspicion without overt fear, outrage, or guilt language.

What to Watch For

This messaging appears coordinated. Look for independent sources with different framing.
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else