Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

14
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
60% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Uverdige bilder spredt av beboere ved sykehjem i Kristiansand
NRK

Uverdige bilder spredt av beboere ved sykehjem i Kristiansand

Bilder og film av beboere ved et sykehjem i Kristiansand i uverdige situasjoner har blitt spredt på sosiale medier. Saken er politianmeldt.

By Amalie Sande Henden; Journalist; Heidi Ditlefsen
View original →

Perspectives

Both analyses agree the article relies heavily on official statements and includes a public call for tips, but they differ on how this affects credibility. The critical perspective sees emotionally charged language and selective framing as modest manipulation, while the supportive perspective views the same quotations and procedural detail as hallmarks of legitimate reporting. Weighing the evidence, the piece shows signs of bias yet also demonstrates transparency about missing information, leading to a moderate manipulation rating.

Key Points

  • The article uses vivid, emotionally loaded descriptions that can steer reader judgment, but these are paired with direct quotations from multiple authorities.
  • Procedural details such as police involvement, an internal investigation, and a request for public tips are present, supporting authenticity.
  • Both perspectives note missing context (source of videos, identity of staff member), which limits a definitive credibility judgment.

Further Investigation

  • Obtain the original video sources and verify how they were obtained to assess potential bias.
  • Interview independent witnesses or experts on privacy regulations in care facilities to contextualize the alleged breach.
  • Review any prior complaints or systemic safeguards at the municipality to determine if this incident is isolated or part of a pattern.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choice is presented; the article does not force readers to pick between two extreme options.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The narrative frames the wrongdoing as the action of a single employee versus the broader care staff, but it does not create a broader “us vs. them” battle between groups.
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
The story presents a clear wrongdoing (illegal filming) without delving into systemic causes, offering a straightforward good‑vs‑bad framing.
Timing Coincidence 2/5
Search results show the story broke shortly after the videos were leaked to NRK, with no alignment to a larger political calendar, indicating a primarily organic news cycle rather than strategic timing.
Historical Parallels 2/5
While similar to past Norwegian elder‑care privacy scandals, the coverage lacks the hallmarks of state‑directed propaganda campaigns (e.g., coordinated false narratives, foreign amplification).
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No evidence was found of any party, corporation, or lobby group gaining financially or politically; the municipality and health authorities are the only parties mentioned, and they appear to be managing the fallout.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The article does not claim that “everyone” agrees with a particular viewpoint; it simply reports statements from officials and a patient ombud.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Social‑media activity remained low and steady, with no sudden surge or coordinated push urging the public to change opinion quickly.
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Identical phrasing such as “det er helt soleklart brudd på alle retningslinjer” appears in NRK and two regional outlets, reflecting a shared press release rather than a covert coordination across independent sources.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The argument that the incident proves overall systemic failure is implied but not explicitly stated; no clear fallacy such as straw‑man or slippery slope is evident.
Authority Overload 1/5
Only municipal officials and a patient ombud are quoted; there is no reliance on questionable experts or excessive authority appeals.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
The report highlights the most shocking video moments (e.g., a resident filmed without pants) without providing broader statistics on how common such incidents are in Norwegian care homes.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Words like “sviktende dømmekraft,” “uverdige situasjoner,” and “trist” frame the staff member’s actions as morally reprehensible, steering reader perception toward condemnation.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
The article does not label critics or dissenting voices negatively; it focuses on the alleged misconduct and official responses.
Context Omission 3/5
The piece omits details about how the videos were obtained, the identity of the staff member, and any prior complaints, leaving gaps that could affect full understanding.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
The piece reports a specific incident without presenting it as an unprecedented, world‑shaking revelation; the language stays within ordinary news framing.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional terms appear only a few times (e.g., “trist,” “uverdige”), so there is little repetitive reinforcement of a single feeling.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
Outrage stems from the factual description of staff filming residents without consent; the article does not fabricate or exaggerate facts to create anger.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no explicit call for immediate public action; the article merely invites tips (“Har du tips til denne saken? Ta gjerne kontakt.”) without urging rapid response.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The text uses emotionally charged language such as “sviktende dømmekraft,” “uverdige situasjoner,” and “trist” to evoke disgust and sympathy for the residents.

Identified Techniques

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