Skip to main content

Influence Tactics Analysis Results

9
Influence Tactics Score
out of 100
68% confidence
Low manipulation indicators. Content appears relatively balanced.
Optimized for English content.
Analyzed Content
Snøkaos lammer New York: – Sprøtt og surrealistisk å gå i gatene her
VG

Snøkaos lammer New York: – Sprøtt og surrealistisk å gå i gatene her

En kraftig snøstorm har lagt New York-området øde med over 38 centimeter snø, orkanlignende vindkast og mer enn 10.000 kansellerte fly på østkysten.

By Karin Muri
View original →

Perspectives

Both the critical and supportive analyses agree that the article largely reports factual information about the snowstorm and shows only modest signs of manipulation. The critical view notes mildly emotive language and a personal anecdote that could heighten perceived severity, while the supportive view points to multiple cited outlets and concrete statistics that suggest legitimate reporting. Weighing these points, the content appears only slightly manipulative, leading to a low‑to‑moderate manipulation score.

Key Points

  • Emotive descriptors such as "voldsom" and "brutalt" are used, but they do not dominate the piece and no overt calls to action are present.
  • The article cites several external sources (CNN, BBC, New York Post) and provides specific figures, which, if accurate, strengthen its credibility.
  • Both perspectives identify a human‑interest vignette that personalises the storm; this adds emotional tone but is a common journalistic technique rather than deceptive framing.

Further Investigation

  • Verify the cited CNN, BBC and New York Post reports to confirm they exist and contain the quoted figures.
  • Compare the reported snowfall totals and flight cancellations with official meteorological and aviation data for the same period.
  • Analyse a broader sample of the outlet’s coverage to see whether emotive language is typical or unusually heightened in this piece.

Analysis Factors

Confidence
False Dilemmas 1/5
No binary choices are presented; the article does not force readers into an either‑or decision.
Us vs. Them Dynamic 1/5
The text does not set up an "us vs. them" narrative; it describes the situation without assigning blame to any group.
Simplistic Narratives 1/5
The story avoids a good‑vs‑evil framing; it presents a balanced account of impacts, forecasts, and official responses.
Timing Coincidence 1/5
Searches showed the story was published shortly after the storm hit, matching normal news cycles and not aligning with any unrelated major event, indicating organic timing.
Historical Parallels 1/5
The content does not echo known propaganda techniques; it follows standard weather‑reporting style and lacks the manipulative motifs seen in historic state‑sponsored disinformation campaigns.
Financial/Political Gain 1/5
No evidence was found that any company, politician, or political group benefits financially or politically from the coverage; the article simply aggregates public weather data.
Bandwagon Effect 1/5
The article does not claim that "everyone" is experiencing the storm in a way that pressures readers to conform; it merely states observed facts.
Rapid Behavior Shifts 1/5
No hashtags, trending topics, or coordinated pushes urging immediate belief changes were identified; discourse around the storm remained typical of ordinary weather reporting.
Phrase Repetition 1/5
Other outlets covered the storm with their own wording; no identical paragraphs or coordinated talking points were detected, suggesting independent reporting.
Logical Fallacies 2/5
The narrative is largely descriptive; it does not contain clear logical fallacies such as slippery‑slope or ad hominem arguments.
Authority Overload 1/5
The article references reputable sources (CNN, BBC, New York Post) but does not overload the reader with excessive expert opinions; the citations are appropriate for the content.
Cherry-Picked Data 3/5
The focus on high snowfall totals and flight cancellations highlights the storm's impact, but it does not present contradictory data (e.g., areas with minimal disruption), which could be seen as selective.
Framing Techniques 3/5
Language like "voldsom," "kaotisk," and "brutalt bombesyklon‑uvær" frames the storm as severe, which is a common journalistic technique to convey seriousness without overt bias.
Suppression of Dissent 1/5
No dissenting voices are mentioned or labeled negatively; the article sticks to factual reporting.
Context Omission 3/5
While the piece cites many statistics, it omits broader context such as long‑term climate trends or comparative data on past storms, which could help readers gauge severity.
Novelty Overuse 2/5
The piece mentions the storm as "historisk" (historic) and the "første store snøstorm på ni år," which are factual observations rather than sensational, unprecedented claims.
Emotional Repetition 1/5
Emotional words appear only a few times (e.g., "kaotisk," "crazy"); they are not repeatedly invoked throughout the article.
Manufactured Outrage 1/5
No outrage is manufactured; the article reports facts about flight cancellations and power loss without blaming any party.
Urgent Action Demands 1/5
There is no explicit call for readers to act immediately; the text merely reports closures and power outages without urging any specific behavior.
Emotional Triggers 2/5
The article uses mild emotive language such as "voldsom snøstorm" (violent snowstorm) and describes the scene as "brutalt bombesyklon‑uvær" (brutal bomb cyclone weather), but it does not employ strong fear‑ or guilt‑inducing rhetoric.

Identified Techniques

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