Abstract
This article examines speech manipulation within media texts and provides a structured framework for its identification in forensic linguistic practice. The study addresses the rising conflict potential in modern public communication, which demands more precise, context-sensitive tools to interpret controversial statements that impact public opinion and social reputation. A critical review of both domestic and international research highlights existing methodological gaps and underscores the importance of an integrated approach – one that combines semantic, pragmalinguistic, and discourse analysis. Using a public video address as a case study, the research demonstrates how specific linguistic mechanisms of influence operate under real-world pragmatic conditions. The study establishes a systematic set of criteria to help experts qualify manipulative speech by analyzing its semantic structure, intent, and context. These findings offer practical utility for forensic linguistic expertise, particularly when distinguishing between verifiable factual claims and subjective value judgments in legal disputes.