Toolkit Module #3:
Following the Power – A Forensic Prompting Guide
If Toolkit #2 taught us to ask through a different intellectual lens, this module teaches us to trace the material lens: the flow of money, influence, and institutional incentive behind any headline. Mainstream narratives often obscure these pathways. Our job is to illuminate them.
We move from “what is the story?” to “who benefits from this story being told this way?” and “whose interests are materially served by this policy or conflict?”
This is how we audit power.
---
The Core Method: The “Interest Tracing” Prompt
The goal is to structure prompts that force AI to connect actors, financial flows, and outcomes. The general formula is:
“Identify the major [TYPE OF ACTOR] with a significant material interest in [POLICY/ISSUE/CONFLICT]. Trace the documented links between their interests and the prevailing narrative or policy outcome regarding [SPECIFIC ASPECT].”
---
The Power Map: Four Pathways to Trace
Apply the formula by specifying one of these actor types.
1. Corporate & Lobbying Power
· Focus: Private profit, market control, deregulation.
· Prompt Pattern: “Identify the major corporations and industry lobbying groups with a financial stake in [ISSUE, e.g., ‘climate regulation’, ‘healthcare policy’]. What are their publicly stated positions, and what lobbying expenditures or political contributions are documented?”
· Example: “Identify the major fossil fuel corporations and their trade associations with a stake in net-zero legislation. Trace their lobbying expenditures and the key arguments in their policy briefs.”
2. State & Geopolitical Power
· Focus: National strategy, resource access, military-industrial interests, sanctions.
· Prompt Pattern: “Analyze [CONFLICT or FOREIGN POLICY] through the framework of strategic resource access (e.g., energy corridors, rare minerals) and long-term military positioning. Which state actors’ core strategic interests are most involved?”
· Example: “Analyze the diplomatic stance of major powers on a specific regional conflict through the framework of access to rare earth mineral supplies and military basing rights.”
3. Financial & Institutional Power
· Focus: Central banks, hedge funds, credit agencies, sovereign debt.
· Prompt Pattern: “What are the major financial institutions and funds most exposed to [COUNTRY’S DEBT / SPECIFIC INDUSTRY]? How have their investment positions or public ratings influenced policy responses to [CRISIS]?”
· Example: “What major hedge funds and credit default swap holders were most exposed to Sri Lankan sovereign debt? How did their public positioning align with the terms of the IMF bailout?”
4. Ideological & Narrative Power
· Focus: Think tanks, media ownership, academic funding.
· Prompt Pattern: “Map the ecosystem of think tanks and media outlets that dominate the discourse on [ISSUE]. Who funds them? Draw connections between their funders’ core interests and the narrative frames they consistently promote.”
· Example: “Map the network of think tanks publishing extensively on ‘fiscal responsibility’ during the [COUNTRY] debt ceiling debate. Who are their top corporate funders?”
---
Your Assignment & Evolving This Toolkit
1. Practice: Choose a current issue. Run two different “Interest Tracing” prompts (e.g., one on corporate power, one on ideological power). Compare the layers of analysis they reveal.
2. Share: In the comments, post one specific link you found most revealing (e.g., “Lobbying group X spent Y amount while advocating for Z policy”).
3. Build: What other “power pathways” should we add to this map? Suggest a new category or a specific research source that helps trace these connections.
This toolkit turns passive consumption into active investigation. By following the power, we understand the stage upon which the news is performed.