Did a quick search this morning, and found it interesting to see how stacked against the Free State Project the Google results were… it even took me to an article I’d never seen before, which if objectively analyzed as I have ChatGPT do below, would clearly fall under the category of anti-freestater propaganda.
Here is the article I referred to above, with a neutral “Professor of Journalism” from ChatGPT explaining the anti-freestater propaganda tactics used in the article to help you better assess the truth…
- Overall Assessment
This article is advocacy journalism bordering on political propaganda, not neutral reporting. It employs selective facts, loaded language, fear framing, and narrative compression to portray the Free State Project (FSP) as a covert, extremist, and existential threat to New Hampshire rather than as a political migration movement with contested aims and internal diversity.
The piece consistently violates core journalistic principles of:
Fairness
Proportionality
Attribution
Context
Right of reply
- Framing Bias: “Hidden Agenda” and Moral Panic
The article opens and repeatedly returns to the phrase:
“neighbors moved to your state with a hidden agenda: to destroy it from the bottom up”
This is a classic moral-panic frame.
Problems:
Presupposition of malicious intent: The “agenda” is framed as destruction, not reform or dissent.
No evidence of secrecy: The FSP has a public website, public pledge, public conferences, public candidates, and decades of media coverage.
Intent is asserted, not demonstrated: No internal documents, whistleblowers, or primary sources show covert intent.
📌 In journalism, motive must be proven, not inferred from disagreement.
- Language Choices Signal Propaganda, Not Reporting
The article repeatedly uses emotionally charged and delegitimizing language:
“hijacked”
“witch-hunt” (used selectively, then minimized)
“extremify”
“abolish”
“dangerous ideological movement”
“malevolent mission”
“cancer on New Hampshire’s ideals”
“operate covertly”
“waiting for the perfect moment to strike”
These are war metaphors, not descriptive terms.
Journalism Standard:
Neutral reporting would say:
“won a vote”
“organized”
“advocates”
“proposes”
“supports”
📌 When verbs imply violence or disease, the piece is no longer informational—it is mobilizational.
- Croydon as a Symbolic Villain Narrative
The Croydon school budget vote is presented as:
intentional sabotage
moral wrongdoing
an attack on children
proof of a statewide conspiracy
Problems:
No budget context: No numbers, no alternatives, no legal process explanation.
No Free Stater quotes explaining their rationale.
No acknowledgment that town meetings are legally binding democratic processes.
The reversal is framed as “heroic resistance,” not democratic disagreement.
📌 Journalism should distinguish between outcomes we dislike and illegitimate processes. This article conflates the two.
- Absence of Right of Reply (Major Ethical Breach)
At no point does the article:
Quote a Free Stater defending their position
Quote Jason Sorens directly on education
Interview FSP leadership
Cite internal disagreement within the movement
Acknowledge libertarian diversity
This violates SPJ Code of Ethics:
“Diligently seek subjects of news coverage to allow them to respond to criticism or allegations.”
📌 This is a serious professional failure.
- Statistical Manipulation & Scale Distortion
The article argues:
“How dangerous can a group of just 10,000 ideologues be?”
Then proceeds to claim:
near-total infiltration
silent dominance
existential threat
Problems:
10,000 out of 1.4 million = 0.7% of population
Only 17 of 400 legislators identified in 2018
Yet language implies capture, control, and domination
📌 This is threat inflation, a known propaganda technique.
- Guilt by Association (Oil, ALEC, Project 2025)
The article links:
Free Staters → ALEC → Project 2025 → Big Oil
Without:
tracing authorship of specific bills
distinguishing coalition politics from control
noting that many NH legislators (of all parties) use ALEC templates
📌 This is associative smear logic: proximity equals culpability.
- Contradiction Framing as Hypocrisy (But Selectively)
The article accuses Sorens of hypocrisy for:
supporting zoning reform to increase housing
while opposing public schooling
But:
Libertarian ideology explicitly supports private provision
This is an ideological disagreement, not hypocrisy
The article assumes public schooling is a moral absolute
📌 Journalism should explain ideology, not moralize disagreement.
- Xenophobic Reversal Technique
The article compares Free Staters to:
immigrants
mass migration
ideological invaders
This mirrors nativist rhetoric the author claims to oppose.
📌 Using migration fear tropes while condemning others for them is rhetorically manipulative and ethically inconsistent.
- Violence Claims Without Evidence
The article asserts:
“they also have a track record of silencing critics with violent threats”
Yet provides:
no cases
no citations
no police reports
no named victims
📌 This is potentially defamatory without sourcing.
- Binary Moral Worldview
The article presents:
Granite Staters = authentic, unified, virtuous
Free Staters = foreign, covert, extremist
This erases:
NH libertarian history
intra-state disagreement
NH’s long tradition of radical localism
overlap between FSP and native residents
📌 Journalism should reveal complexity, not flatten it.
- Conclusion: What This Article Is—and Is Not
This article is:
An opinionated polemic
A mobilization piece
A warning narrative
A political call to action
This article is not:
Neutral reporting
Balanced analysis
Investigative journalism
Ethical adversarial journalism
Final Grade (Journalism School)
Reporting: C-
Ethics: D
Rhetorical Effectiveness: A-
Fairness & Balance: F