latest

How astroturfing creates the illusion of authenticity and faux consensus.

latest experts

CAN YOU IDENTIFY PROPAGANDA?

Find out
Want to help us continue our work? All donations are tax deductible.
support this project

Alisyn Camerota interviews Matt Schlapp on Michael Cohen and Mueller's alleged conflicts of interest.

By Adriel Atwater
08/04/2018 • 12:00 AM EST

Don't know how to use this page?

: Click or tap on any techniquesee definition - the definition will be displayed here.
 that appears in bold to show its definition.
: ad hominemsee definition - attacking the character or motive of the person making an argument, rather than attacking the argument itself.
: Schlapp attacks Cohen's character and suggests his motives, without refuting his allegations.
: ad hominemsee definition - attacking the character or motive of the person making an argument, rather than attacking the argument itself.
: Schlapp focuses on Cohen's possible motives for his claims against Trump, without refuting any of his actual claims.
: appeal to ignorancesee definition - suggesting that something is true simply because it hasn’t yet been proven false.
: Schlapp suggests the idea of conflicts of interests may be true, because they haven't yet been proven false.
: Rather than explore the merits of the allegation, Camerota defends the vetting process and Mueller's character.
: appeal to ignorancesee definition - suggesting that something is true simply because it hasn’t yet been proven false.
: Schlapp suggests the idea of conflicts of interests with Bob Mueller may be true, because Mueller hasn't yet proven them false.
: Schlapp, not being challenged on the veracity of the conflicts, is now free to focus on the vetting process.
: the American peoplesee definition - promoting a position as having the overwhelming support of all Americans, while providing no evidence that it does.
: misleading claimsee definition - a statement with a few elements or kernel of truth, which can easily be proven deceptive or fundamentally untrue.
: The "business relationship" between Mueller and Trump that ended, was Mueller's membership at a Trump golf course.[1]
: Schlapp acknowledges he's making his conclusions based on a lack of evidence to the contrary.
: Camerota again defends the DOJ vetting process, while never scrutinizing the claim of conflicts of interest.
: misleading claimsee definition - a statement with a few elements or kernel of truth, which can easily be proven deceptive or fundamentally untrue.
: The "acrimonious business relationship" Schlapp is referring to was Mueller ending his membership at a Trump golf course.[2]
: Camerota again defends the vetting process.
: appeals to ignorancesee definition - suggesting that something is true simply because it hasn’t yet been proven false.
: Schlapp concludes that "there's something there," because it hasn't yet been proven that there's not something there.
: whataboutismsee definition - discrediting a criticism by accusing hypocrisy, in order to shift the focus away from oneself and onto others.
: Schlapp shifts the focus from Trump not doing enough to stop Russian interference to Obama not doing enough.
: false claimsee definition - a statement that is directly contradicted by fact and can be easily proven untrue.
: Russian efforts were NOT designed to create chaos for both Clinton and Trump; they were designed to hurt Clinton and help Trump.[3]

Total number of techniques detected over the 10:48 runtime of this video clip:

PROPAGANDA TECHNIQUES

6 OCCURRENCES

ad hominem:    
appeal to ignorance:      
whataboutism:  

FALSEHOODS & DISTORTIONS

3 OCCURRENCES

false claim:  
misleading claim:    

SUMMARY

9 OCCURRENCES

Schlapp: 100%

References
1. "Debunking Mueller's 'Conflicts'". FactCheck.org. Published: April 19, 2019.

2. "Mueller explains why his family left Trump's golf club". CNN Politics. Published: April 18, 2019.