Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

31
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
59% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Svarer popstjernen med dansevideo: – Vi elsker deportasjon
VG

Svarer popstjernen med dansevideo: – Vi elsker deportasjon

Bruker hennes egen låt i TikTok-klippet.

By Even Nævdal
View original →

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
No explicit two-option ultimatums; reports contrasting lists but allows nuance like Larsson's context on boyfriend's case.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 3/5
Highlights us-vs-them via Larsson's 'elsker innvandrere, kriminelle' vs. White House 'elsker deportasjon, ICE'; her Trump jab '34 dommer' amplifies partisan divide.
Simplistic Narratives 3/5
Frames as popstar vs. White House clash with love/hate lists ('elsker... hater ICE' parodied by 'Vi elsker...'), reducing immigration debate to binaries.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Zara's post reacted to personal visa issue and recent Minneapolis ICE shooting sparking protests (Jan 10 news); White House video timed with ICE arrest reports; appears organic amid immigration news, no strategic distraction evident from searches.
Historical Parallels 1/5
No matches to propaganda campaigns; resembles routine political responses to celeb activism like past Trump videos, not disinformation patterns found in searches.
Financial/Political Gain 3/5
Trump/White House gains from viral pro-ICE parody amid enforcement focus, boosting messaging to base; neutral Norwegian outlets like Expressen report without evident bias or funding ties per searches.
Bandwagon Effect 2/5
Mentions video's 700.000 avspillinger and social media storm but no 'everyone agrees' pressure; focuses on exchange without claiming broad consensus.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 2/5
Viral X traction and 'Lush Life' chart re-entry (#70 Hot 100) show quick buzz, but organic from feud; no extreme pressure or coordinated push detected in searches.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Similar reporting on video phrases like 'Vi elsker deportasjon' and 'Vi ELSKER ICE' across Expressen, SVT, Aftonbladet; clustered Jan 13 but normal news spread, diverse tones.
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Larsson's quoted retort equates minor crimes ('stjålet eller røykt marihuana') with Trump's '34 dommer', false equivalence; content reports without endorsing.
Authority Overload 1/5
No questionable experts cited; relies on direct quotes from Larsson and White House video.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Spotlights sensational love/hate lists and video phrases while downplaying broader context like protests or arrests.
Framing Techniques 4/5
Biased word choices like 'dansende Trump' (dancing Trump) and 'parodierer' (parodies) portray White House response lightheartedly, while Larsson's post as 'storm'-causing.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
Reports Larsson's defense ('De stemte på en med 34 dommer') without labeling critics negatively.
Context Omission 3/5
Omits full context of boyfriend's 'dom' (prior conviction, likely minor per her clarification) and ICE shooting details; focuses on provocative quotes.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
No excessive 'unprecedented' or 'shocking' claims beyond noting the 'storm' created by Larsson's post and White House response, which is standard celebrity news framing.
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Emotional words like 'elsker' (love/hate lists) are quoted from originals but not repeated for effect in the article itself.
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Outrage is reported as real reactions ('sinte på henne') tied to Larsson's 'elsker kriminelle' statement and her Trump comeback, not exaggerated beyond facts.
Urgent Action Demands 2/5
No demands for immediate action; content neutrally reports the social media exchange and video views without pressuring readers to act.
Emotional Triggers 3/5
Content uses mild emotional triggers like 'skapte storm på sosiale medier' and 'Trump-tilhengere ble sinte' to describe backlash, but remains mostly factual reporting without heavy fear or outrage inducement.

Identified Techniques

Loaded Language Name Calling, Labeling Doubt Repetition Black-and-White Fallacy

What to Watch For

Notice the emotional language used - what concrete facts support these claims?
This content frames an 'us vs. them' narrative. Consider perspectives from 'the other side'.
Key context may be missing. What questions does this content NOT answer?

This content shows some manipulation indicators. Consider the source and verify key claims.

Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Share on X Facebook LinkedIn
Analyze Something Else