☺️ 20 years, countless questions, one honest conversation. Ildikó Csuhaj and I have known each other for a long time.
As government spokesperson, I answered her questions on many occasions, and now we sat down for an in-depth interview as a guest on “Do I Need to Say Anything Else, Ildikó?”
We touched on almost every topic: politics, public opinion polls, chances, Budapest, and what is at stake in the decisive April election.
It’s worth watching! Link in the comments. 👇
Now, just to show how someone could act in bad faith and take a misleading video or photo: at this very moment, Fidesz is collecting signatures here. I could easily make a video suggesting, for example, that there’s no one at the Tisza stand.
By the way, this is generally how the morning is unfolding today here in Újpalota at the market hall. I’m saying this because on Saturday, during the signature collection, in many towns Tisza activists were manipulating, playing tricks, spreading falsehoods, and stirring people up by claiming that only they were present and Fidesz was not.
We will achieve a major victory on April 12. It will be good!
🧠 Rhetorical–Propaganda Analysis
Topic: “Signature collection, victory narrative, and local visual manipulation”
Actors:
- Németh Balázs
- Csuhaj Ildikó
- Fidesz
- Tisza Párt
1️⃣ Credibility Framing – “20 years, an honest conversation”
📌 Technique:
- Emphasizing a long-standing personal relationship (“20 years”).
- Labeling the discussion as an “honest conversation” — pre-declaring moral quality.
- Suggesting a friendly relationship with the journalist.
🎯 Goal:
To strengthen the speaker’s credibility before addressing any substantive content.
💥 Effect:
The audience is more likely to listen with less critical scrutiny to someone perceived as a “long-time acquaintance” or “trusted figure.”
2️⃣ Preemptive Visual Framing – “Now one could make a video…”
📌 Technique:
- Openly describing a framing trick: if a video were recorded now, it could appear as if only one side were present.
- Relativizing the use of a moment taken out of context.
🎯 Goal:
Preemptive defense: anyone who creates such footage is framed as acting in “bad faith.”
💥 Effect:
The speaker’s narrative becomes insulated — any contradictory visual evidence can be dismissed as manipulation.
This is a classic case of preemptive delegitimization.
3️⃣ Enemy Construction – “They tricked, lied, incited”
📌 Technique:
- Stacking emotionally charged negative verbs.
- Making broad moral accusations rather than addressing specific cases.
🎯 Goal:
To damage the opponent’s character rather than refute concrete claims.
💥 Effect:
The debate shifts from substantive discussion to a moral battleground.
4️⃣ Pre-Announced Victory Narrative – “We will win a great victory”
📌 Technique:
- Confident use of future tense.
- Emotional mobilization.
- Collective identity framing (“we”).
🎯 Goal:
To energize supporters and influence undecided voters.
💥 Effect:
Politics is reframed as a sporting contest → “who will win.”
This is a classic application of the bandwagon effect.
🧩 Overall Picture
The structure of the communication:
- Building credibility (long relationship, interview context)
- Preemptively relativizing counter-narratives
- Launching moral attacks against the opponent
- Projecting confident victory framing
This is not concrete policy argumentation, but rather an attempt at emotional space occupation.