Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

7
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
66% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Skal ikke ha sett vold
Dagbladet

Skal ikke ha sett vold

Danby Choi (32) skal ikke ha sett at Marius Borg Høiby (29) utøvde vold mot Nora Haukland (28) i sine redaksjonslokaler.

By Angelica Hagen; Anette Beckhaug; Marlene Lundberg Holm; Katrine Bjelke
View original →

Perspectives

Both analyses agree the article largely follows standard reporting conventions, presenting statements from the parties and the judge, but the critical perspective notes subtle framing and selective quoting that could bias readers. Overall the evidence points to low levels of manipulation.

Key Points

  • The article includes direct quotations and courtroom context, supporting the supportive perspective’s claim of balanced reporting.
  • The headline and selective emphasis identified by the critical perspective introduce a mild framing bias.
  • Both perspectives note the lack of independent corroboration such as police reports, leaving some uncertainty.
  • The overall manipulation indicators are minimal, suggesting a low manipulation score.

Further Investigation

  • Obtain police reports or official statements about the alleged incident.
  • Seek independent witnesses or third‑party corroboration of the accounts.
  • Analyze a broader sample of the outlet’s coverage for systematic framing patterns.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices are forced on the audience; the narrative does not present only two exclusive outcomes.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The article does not frame the dispute as an “us vs. them” battle between groups; it stays focused on individual testimonies.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
The story does not reduce the situation to a simple good‑vs‑evil dichotomy; both sides are presented with their own accounts.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches found no coinciding major events; the story was published as part of routine coverage of the trial, suggesting organic timing rather than strategic placement.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The article does not mirror known propaganda templates; its structure and language match ordinary Norwegian court reporting rather than any historic disinformation campaign.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No organization, politician, or company stands to profit or gain influence from the article; it is a straightforward news report with no disclosed sponsor or agenda.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The piece never claims that “everyone believes” a particular version; it simply relays statements from the involved parties and the judge.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
There is no pressure for readers to change opinions instantly; the text lacks urgency cues, countdowns, or trending‑hashtag pushes.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Only Dagbladet carries this exact phrasing; other outlets either do not cover the story or use distinct wording, indicating no coordinated messaging.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The narrative includes anecdotal claims (e.g., “jeg merker med en gang når det er noe med Marius”) that rely on personal perception rather than objective proof, hinting at hasty generalization.
Authority Overload 1/5
No experts, legal scholars, or authority figures beyond the judge are quoted; the piece relies solely on the participants’ statements.
Cherry-Picked Data 2/5
Selective quotations are used—e.g., Haukland’s description of Høiby’s phone behavior and Høiby’s claim of being “nok sint”—without presenting any broader evidence that might confirm or refute either side.
Framing Techniques 3/5
The headline “Skal ikke ha sett vold” frames the editor as a non‑witness, subtly influencing the reader to doubt the victim’s account, while phrases like “det kan godt hende” introduce uncertainty that leans toward the accused’s perspective.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
The article does not label any critics or alternative viewpoints as illegitimate; it reports the courtroom dialogue without derogatory labeling.
Context Omission 3/5
Key contextual details are absent, such as any police report findings, prior history of violence, or independent corroboration of either party’s version, leaving the reader without a full factual picture.
Novelty Overuse 1/5
No extraordinary or unprecedented claims are made; the piece reports a standard courtroom testimony without sensational novelty.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional triggers appear only once or twice (e.g., the quoted anger), without repeated reinforcement throughout the text.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
The narrative presents the parties’ statements without adding inflammatory commentary; there is no evident attempt to spark outrage beyond the facts of the case.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
The article does not contain any demand for readers to act immediately; there are no calls like “share this now” or “contact authorities today.”
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The text includes mildly charged language such as “jeg er nok sint” and “skrek nok en del,” which evokes some personal frustration but does not heavily exploit fear, guilt, or outrage.

Identified Techniques

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