Trump sons looking to make a motza as drones rewrite the rules of war

smh.com.au·Annie Massa, Tom Maloney
View original article
0out of 100
Noticeable — persuasion techniques worth noting

This article uses a sense of urgency to grab your attention about Donald Trump Jr.'s and Eric Trump's drone investments, implying they're cashing in on their father's political influence and the ongoing war. It leans on authorities like military experts to make its claims about the importance of drones seem unquestionable, linking the Trump sons' investments to government priorities without fully explaining the financial rationale behind these specific investments or broader market trends.

FATE Analysis

Four dimensions of psychological manipulation: how content captures Focus, exploits Authority, triggers Tribal identity, and engineers Emotion.

Focus6/10Authority6/10Tribe4/10Emotion5/10
FFocus
0/10
AAuthority
0/10
TTribe
0/10
EEmotion
0/10

Focus signals

novelty spike
"Just a few months on, those investments look quite different. Both companies recently made abrupt pivots into drones – a technology playing a key role in the US and Israel’s war in Iran."

This highlights a sudden, significant change in investment focus, framing it as a novel and unexpected development that captures attention due to its timing and relevance to a major geopolitical event.

attention capture
"But few intersect as closely with government priorities as their push into drones."

This statement uses framing to elevate the drone investments above other ventures, signaling to the reader that this particular angle is uniquely significant and warrants special attention due to its overlap with government interests.

breaking framing
"The deals come at a moment when unmanned aircraft are a key focus for the US military, which is deploying one-way attack systems for the first time in the Iran conflict and looking for cheaper ways to shoot down inexpensive enemy drones than using $US4 million interceptors."

By explicitly linking the investments to the current, ongoing 'Iran conflict' and emphasizing 'first time' deployments, the article creates a sense of immediacy and 'breaking news' relevance, making the information seem urgent and impactful.

Authority signals

credential leveraging
"Powerus, the company at the centre of the Trumps’ most recent drone deal, was co-founded by Brett Velicovich, a US army veteran and former Delta Force intelligence analyst who wrote a book called Drone Warrior."

The article uses Velicovich's military background and specific expertise ('Delta Force intelligence analyst', 'Drone Warrior' author) to lend credibility and weight to the company he co-founded and, by extension, the Trump's investments therein.

institutional authority
"Potential for conflicts of interest loom as the Trumps support companies working to secure government contracts, said Stacie Pettyjohn, director of the defence program at the Centre for a New American Security in Washington."

Quoting Stacie Pettyjohn, identified by her title and affiliation with a reputable 'Centre for a New American Security in Washington', uses institutional weight to validate concerns about potential conflicts of interest, leveraging the authority of a policy think tank.

expert appeal
"It’s not lost on industry executives that US Central Command has highlighted drones from the earliest moments of the Iran war.“The situation in Iran has delivered a clear signal to the drone industry,” said Olaf Hichwa, co-founder of Neros Technologies, a drone manufacturer based in California."

The article cites an 'industry executive' and co-founder of a drone manufacturer, Olaf Hichwa, to underscore the perceived importance and urgency of drone production. His statement frames the Iran war as a clear directive to the industry, leveraging his insider status to emphasize a specific interpretation of events.

Tribe signals

us vs them
"Both companies recently made abrupt pivots into drones – a technology playing a key role in the US and Israel’s war in Iran."

This establishes a clear 'us-vs-them' dynamic by framing the drone technology within the context of 'the US and Israel’s war in Iran', immediately creating an implicit alignment with one side of a conflict.

identity weaponization
"The United States has taken a clear stance in protecting Western allies, and I believe strongly in that mission,” Aviv Shapira, chief executive of Xtend, said in an emailed statement.“We are proud that our technology helps safeguard the brave men and women serving in the military.”"

This quote leverages national and military identity ('Western allies', 'brave men and women serving in the military') to frame the drone technology as a patriotic and protective effort, thereby associating the investment with a positive group identity.

Emotion signals

urgency
"The deals come at a moment when unmanned aircraft are a key focus for the US military, which is deploying one-way attack systems for the first time in the Iran conflict..."

The phrase 'at a moment' combined with the mention of a 'war in Iran' and 'first time' deployments creates a strong sense of urgency, suggesting immediate relevance and critical timing for these investments.

urgency
"He wants additional funds to scale production to 10,000 small remote-controlled drones a month, from 1000 at present."

The emphasis on rapidly scaling production by such a significant factor (tenfold increase) conveys a sense of urgent demand and the critical necessity for these drones, aiming to generate an emotional response tied to perceived national security needs.

emotional fractionation
"Potential for conflicts of interest loom as the Trumps support companies working to secure government contracts..."

The word 'loom' introduces a subtle apprehension or concern, hinting at impending negative consequences without explicitly stating them, creating a mild emotional spike of unease or suspicion, followed by a more factual analysis.

Narrative Analysis (PCP)

How the article reshapes thinking: Perception (what beliefs are targeted), Context (what information is shifted or omitted), and Permission (what behavior is being encouraged).

What it wants you to believe

The article aims to instill the belief that Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump are capitalizing on their father's political influence and the ongoing war to enrich themselves through highly speculative and conflict-of-interest-laden drone investments. It suggests that their investments are not genuinely strategic or innovative but rather opportunistic and tied directly to government priorities influenced by their father's political position.

Context being shifted

The article shifts the context of business investments from standard market analysis and growth potential to one heavily influenced by political connections and potential conflicts of interest, especially in the context of government contracts. The rapid pivot of initially unrelated companies into drones and the timing with the Iran conflict makes these investments appear suspicious rather than simply strategic business decisions.

What it omits

The article omits detailed financial analysis or justification for *why* these drone companies were chosen beyond their connection to Trump Jr. and Eric. It doesn't explore the broader market trends in drone technology independent of the Trump family's involvement, which might provide alternative, less politically charged motivations for these investments. The specific expertise or due diligence (if any) that led to these investments is not detailed, making them seem solely driven by family connections.

Desired behavior

The reader is nudged to view the Trump sons' business activities with skepticism and to associate 'Trump-backed' ventures, especially in defense-related sectors, with potential unethical self-enrichment and conflicts of interest. It encourages a critical, distrustful stance towards such dealings, implying that public figures (especially those with political ties) should be scrutinized for profiting from government priorities.

SMRP Pattern

Four manipulation maintenance tactics: Socializing the idea as normal, Minimizing concerns, Rationalizing with logic, and Projecting blame.

-
Socializing
-
Minimizing
-
Rationalizing
-
Projecting

Red Flags

High-severity indicators: silencing dissent, coordinated messaging, or weaponizing identity to shut down debate.

-
Silencing indicator
!
Controlled release (spokesperson test)

""The United States has taken a clear stance in protecting Western allies, and I believe strongly in that mission," Aviv Shapira, chief executive of Xtend, said in an emailed statement."We are proud that our technology helps safeguard the brave men and women serving in the military.""

-
Identity weaponization

Techniques Found(4)

Specific propaganda techniques identified using the SemEval-2023 academic taxonomy of 23 techniques across 6 categories.

Appeal to ValuesJustification
"The United States has taken a clear stance in protecting Western allies, and I believe strongly in that mission,” Aviv Shapira, chief executive of Xtend, said in an emailed statement.“We are proud that our technology helps safeguard the brave men and women serving in the military.”"

This quote appeals to the values of protecting allies and supporting military personnel to justify the company's involvement and implicitly, the Trumps' investments. It frames the business venture as contributing to a noble cause.

Obfuscation/VaguenessManipulative Wording
"It isn’t clear exactly how much these investments are worth to the Trumps so far."

This statement uses vague language to acknowledge the unknown financial benefit to the Trumps without providing concrete details, leaving room for speculation while avoiding direct claims.

Obfuscation/VaguenessManipulative Wording
"It’s unclear how conflicts of interest play out, and who gets preferential treatment.”"

This quote uses vague language to raise concern about potential conflicts of interest without making specific accusations. It suggests a problem but lacks clear evidence or detail.

Loaded LanguageManipulative Wording
"Potential for conflicts of interest loom as the Trumps support companies working to secure government contracts"

The word 'loom' is an emotionally charged term that suggests an impending and potentially negative threat, creating a sense of unease or suspicion around the Trumps' activities without directly stating that conflicts of interest exist or are confirmed.

Share this analysis