Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

27
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
64% confidence
Moderate manipulation indicators. Some persuasion patterns present.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Polls Open in England's Tinderbox Special Election
Breitbart

Polls Open in England's Tinderbox Special Election

Both Labour and the hard-left Greens positioned themselves as the party best situated to prevent Farage getting another Parliamentary seat.

By Oliver JJ Lane
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive perspectives identify serious problems with the passage, including fear‑laden language, misleading framing of political groups, and a lack of verifiable sources. The critical view emphasizes manipulative framing and selective data, while the supportive view points to factual errors (e.g., calling Keir Starmer "Prime Minister") and implausible candidate listings. Together they suggest the content is likely crafted to provoke alarm and may contain fabricated or distorted elements, leading to a higher manipulation rating than the original assessment.

Key Points

  • Both analyses note the absence of reliable citations for quotes and poll data
  • The passage uses fear‑based and loaded language that frames the Greens and Labour as hostile forces
  • Factual inaccuracies (e.g., mis‑titling Keir Starmer) and the inclusion of unlikely candidates undermine credibility
  • Selective presentation of election data ("too close to call" without methodology) amplifies perceived stakes
  • The convergence of manipulative framing and factual errors points to a high likelihood of deceptive intent

Further Investigation

  • Check official election notices for the actual candidate roster in the Gorton and Denton by‑election
  • Locate any real statements by Keir Starmer or the Prime Minister concerning the by‑election to verify the quoted warning
  • Obtain the original Associated Press report (if any) to confirm the poll description and methodology

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 2/5
Low presence of false dilemmas patterns. (only two extreme options presented) no alternatives presented
Us vs. Them Dynamic 2/5
Low presence of tribal division patterns. (us vs. them dynamics) Pronouns: "us" words: 0, "them" words: 5; othering language: 1 instances
Simplistic Narratives 2/5
Low presence of simplistic narratives patterns. (good vs. evil framing) Moral absolutism words: 0, nuance words: 0; no nuanced analysis
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Minimal indicators of timing coincidence. (strategic timing around events) Best-effort timing analysis (no external context):; no timing language detected
Historical Parallels 2/5
Low presence of historical parallels patterns. (similarity to known propaganda) Best-effort historical analysis (no PSYOP database):; 2 historical references; 2 event indicators
Financial/Political Gain 2/5
Low presence of financial/political gain patterns. (who benefits from this narrative) Best-effort beneficiary analysis (no external context):; 3 political terms
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
Minimal indicators of bandwagon effect. (everyone agrees claims) Conformity words: 2; 1 popularity claims
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
Minimal indicators of rapid behavior shifts. (pressure for immediate opinion change) Best-effort behavior shift analysis (no adoption data):; no rapid behavior shifts detected
Phrase Repetition 2/5
Low presence of uniform messaging patterns. (coordinated identical messaging) Best-effort messaging analysis (no cross-source data):; no uniform messaging detected
Logical Fallacies 3/5
Moderate presence of logical fallacies detected. (flawed reasoning) No logical fallacies detected
Authority Overload 2/5
Low presence of authority overload patterns. (questionable experts cited) No expert appeals found
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
Moderate presence of cherry-picked data detected. (selectively presented data) 2 data points; no methodology explained; no context provided; data selectivity: 1.00, context omission: 1.00
Framing Techniques 3/5
Moderate presence of framing techniques detected. (biased language choices) 1 perspective indicators
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
Minimal indicators of suppression of dissent. (critics labeled negatively) No suppression or dismissive language found
Context Omission 4/5
Notable missing information patterns present. (crucial facts omitted) Claims detected: 10; sentiment: 0.92 (one-sided); 1 qualifier words; 1 perspective phrases; 1 factual indicators; attributions: credible=1, discrediting=1; context completeness: 34%
Novelty Overuse 2/5
Low presence of novelty overuse patterns. (unprecedented/shocking claims) Novelty words: 0, superlatives: 2; historical context: 2 mentions
Emotional Repetition 2/5
Low presence of emotional repetition patterns. (repeated emotional triggers) Emotional words: 2 (2 unique)
Manufactured Outrage 2/5
Low presence of manufactured outrage patterns. (outrage disconnected from facts) Outrage words: 0, factual indicators: 1; emotion-to-fact ratio: 0.00; 2 ALL CAPS words
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
Minimal indicators of urgent action demands. (demands for immediate action) Urgency language: 0 words (0.00%), 0 deadline phrases
Emotional Triggers 4/5
Notable emotional triggers patterns present. (fear, outrage, or guilt language) Emotional words: 2 (0.45% density). Fear: 2, Anger: 0, Guilt: 0. Manipulation score: 0.461
Was this analysis helpful?
Share this analysis
Analyze Something Else