❓ Sentiment analysis on Céline Vara’s trip to Oman (not just the press, but also the general public). I’m more interested in the quantification than the detail of opinions.
Any ideas for this kind of prompt? Do you use AI engines for sentiment analysis? What do you think about the representativeness of the figures put forward, especially on the Perplexity side?
https://www.linkedin.com/feed/update/urn:li:activity:7325795945391005697
TLDR;
- ChatGPT (4o 4.5) apparently favor a narrative and balanced analysis
- Perplexity provides a better analytical, synthetic, and fairly structured presentation of numerical data
ChatGPT 4o
- Narrative and qualitative approach.
- Provides a clear, balanced contextual summary with nuances.
- Emphasizes specific reactions (traditional media, politics, and social networks).
- Avoids overly precise quantitative details, preferring general estimates (“about 70%”, “about 20%”, etc.).
- Treats the subject with a certain editorial neutrality while clearly exposing differences of opinion.
Advantage: Readability, contextualization, and nuance.
Disadvantage: Relative lack of precise quantified data.
ChatGPT 4.5 (Research Preview)
- Similar approach to ChatGPT 4o, but slightly more quantified.
- Focuses on approximate estimates, accompanied by explanatory insights.
- Offers a balance between quantitative and qualitative: numerical breakdowns (70% negative, 20% neutral, 10% positive) accompanied by explanations of underlying motivations.
- Highlights concrete examples (quotes, types of reactions).
Advantage: Good combination of quantification and qualitative explanation.
Disadvantage: May lack specific details on precise points such as exact references to media or personalities.
Perplexity (Pro)
- Very quantitative and synthetic approach, with precise data.
- Presents the analysis in the form of very clear percentages, broken down into clear subcategories.
- Provides specific examples (quotes from newspaper headlines, names of personalities, etc.).
- Uses highly structured categorizations: media coverage, political reactions, sentiment on social networks, main axes of criticism.
- Distinguished by its granularity and numerical exhaustiveness.
Advantage: Great quantitative clarity and ease of analytical reading.
Disadvantage: Less narrative contextualization, potentially giving an impression of superficiality if the reader wishes for a more nuanced understanding.
Key Differences
| Criterion | ChatGPT 4o | ChatGPT 4.5 | Perplexity |
| Quantitative Precision | Moderate (estimates) | Good (estimates + examples) | Very high (precise percentages) |
| Qualitative Context | High (good narration) | High (clear explanations) | Moderate (concise synthesis) |
| Use of Examples | Limited | Moderate | Very detailed (headlines, names, precise quotes) |
| Structure | Narrative | Mixed (quantitative + narrative) | Structured, analytical, synthetic |
| Neutrality | Good (balanced) | Good (balanced) | Moderate to critical (focus on specific controversies) |
ChatGPT 4o Deep Research
Context of the Trip
Céline Vara, a Swiss ecologist figure (The Greens, canton of Neuchâtel), made a private family trip to Oman in the spring of 2025, shortly after her election to the Neuchâtel State Council at the end of March. This stay in a luxury hotel in the sultanate – involving a long round-trip flight – sparked a public debate in French-speaking Switzerland. Indeed, the ecological coherence of this journey was quickly called into question given the elected official’s stated climate commitment. Céline Vara herself did not wish to comment on her choice, considering it “a private matter”.
Echoes in Traditional Media
The French-speaking Swiss press has widely echoed the controversy. Many media outlets have highlighted the political criticism directed at Céline Vara. For example, RTS info reports that her opponents denounce an inconsistency between her pro-climate discourse and this long-distance flight. The newspaper 20 Minutes headlines that “criticism is pouring in” about these holidays in a five-star hotel in the Middle East. Similarly, La Liberté speaks of a trip “reproached” to the Green elected official and a controversy triggered by these CO₂-intensive holidays. The predominant angle in the media is therefore critical: this choice of destination has surprised and angered even within the local political camp. Several articles more generally raise the question of the duty of exemplarity for ecological elected officials, including during their free time.
Reactions on Social Media and Forums
On social media, Céline Vara’s trip also provoked strong reactions, mainly negative. Political figures, especially from the right, have openly mocked the ecologist for what they consider a double standard. For example, National Councillor Philippe Nantermod (PLR) ironically evoked “the Green lecturers” who are preferred “when they visit oil monarchies by plane, in luxury hotels”. The official account of the Swiss UDC also relayed the article reporting the trip, increasing the visibility of the criticism among its supporters. On Twitter and Facebook, numerous comments from internet users accused Céline Vara of climate hypocrisy, some calling her a “tartuffe” (for the discrepancy between her words and actions).
In discussion forums and online article comments, the public expressed themselves widely. A significant proportion of commentators criticized the Green elected official, highlighting the high carbon footprint of a 5,000+ km flight for holidays and reminding of Oman’s shortcomings in terms of human rights and gender equality. Nevertheless, some internet users came to her defense. These favorable voices – although in the minority – called for respect for her private life, believing that her personal trip should not be politically instrumentalized. The fact that Céline Vara and her party insisted that it was a strictly private matter supports this view. Other more neutral reactions simply noted the news without expressing a strong opinion, or opened a more general debate without directly attacking the person.
Overall Assessment of Expressed Sentiments
In summary, public opinion around this trip proved to be mostly negative. It can be estimated that about 70% of publicly expressed reactions (media, social networks, comments) adopted a critical or unfavorable tone towards Céline Vara. These negative reactions range from disappointment to accusations of inconsistency, and constitute the clear majority. About 20% of reactions could be described as neutral or mixed – coming from people simply reporting the facts or engaging in a discussion about the principle of exemplarity without a clear personal judgment. Finally, a small fraction (around 10% or less) of positive or lenient reactions was observed. These come from supporters calling to put the affair into perspective or to respect the elected official’s private sphere, reminding that her trip was part of her personal life. In sum, the public reception of the trip was very largely critical, with a minority of neutral or benevolent voices as a counterpoint to defend Céline Vara’s right to a private life despite her political responsibilities.
Sources: RTS, 20 Minutes, Le Nouvelliste, La Liberté, Blick, reactions on Twitter and Facebook (April–May 2025).
ChatGPT 4.5 Research Preview
The revelation of State Councillor Céline Vara‘s (The Greens) private trip to Oman in April-May 2025 sparked numerous reactions from the general public on social media. Overall, the global sentiment was predominantly negative, with few voices defending her and some neutral reactions. Here is a quantified estimate of reactions by category, accompanied by a brief insight:
Distribution of Reactions and Overall Sentiment
- Negative reactions (about 70%) – The vast majority of comments were critical. Many internet users and political opponents denounced a form of ecological hypocrisy, highlighting the gap between Céline Vara’s climate discourse and this plane trip to a luxury hotel 5,200 km from Switzerland. Criticisms flooded social media (‘criticisms are pouring in’ according to the press), considering that such a trip is incompatible with the exemplarity expected of a Green elected official. These negative reactions represent the majority of the observed comment volume.
- Neutral reactions (about 20%) – Some of the reactions remained neutral or factual. These include simple relaying of information by the media or discussions noting the controversy without taking a firm stance. Some reactions are ironic observations or jokes (for example, wordplays on a ‘storm in the Sea of Oman’), without explicit judgment. Overall, these reactions are limited to commenting on the affair or discussing its principle (should we demand total exemplarity from elected officials even in their private time?), without expressing a clearly favorable or unfavorable opinion.
- Positive reactions (about 10%) – Positive or supportive messages were in the minority. Some people defended Céline Vara by invoking her right to a private life and rest after a grueling campaign. These internet users believe that one can be environmentally conscious while occasionally taking a plane, and denounce excessive criticism. However, these favorable (or lenient) voices are few compared to the flood of criticism. Moreover, as the main person concerned and her party haven’t really communicated on the subject (Céline Vara refused to comment, calling it a ‘private matter’), public support has remained limited and discreet.
Brief Summary
In summary, the public reception has been largely negative regarding Céline Vara’s trip to Oman. It is estimated that about two-thirds of the reactions express criticism or discontent, compared to about one-third neutral or benevolent (with frankly positive reactions representing only ~10% of the total). This imbalance in sentiment illustrates how controversial this affair has been, with most commentators criticizing the Green elected official for a lack of consistency between her actions and her professed values, while a small minority calls for nuance by reminding that it was a private trip. The figures above remain approximate, obtained from accessible mentions, but accurately reflect the general trend observed on social media and forums in early May 2025.
Perplexity
🔎 Summary of Main Results
The sentiment analysis surrounding Céline Vara’s trip to Oman shows a largely negative perception, with about 80% unfavorable opinions in the media and on social networks. The controversy, triggered by Blick, was described by Le Matin as a ‘storm in the Sea of Oman’. The main criticism: the dissonance between her environmentalist values and her choice of destination.
📊 Quantitative Analysis
Media Coverage
🔹 Examples of critical headlines:
‘Storm in the Sea of Oman‘ (1),
‘The Green’s Petty Morals No Longer Pass‘ (3),
‘Can One Preach Water and Drink Wine?‘ (13)
📰 Media Framing
- Carbon footprint estimated between 7 and 9.5 tonnes CO₂ for 4 people (13)
- Stay in a 5-star hotel (Shangri-La Al Waha) (5, 13)
- Human rights situation in Oman (5, 13)
🗳️ Political Reactions
- Negative: ~75%, mainly from the right (5, 8, 10)
- Neutral: ~15%
- Support: ~10%, mainly from the Greens (5)
🎙️ Examples:
- Francis Krähenbühl (PLR): speaks of a “blunder” (5)
- Yvan Perrin (UDC): “modern hypocrites”
- Young Greens: advocate for a systemic vision of ecology
💬 Sentiment on Social Media
📌 Twitter/X: most critical platform, with figures like Philippe Nantermod
⚠️ Main Lines of Criticism
- Ecological inconsistency (~60% of criticisms)
- Long-haul flight (5200 km)
- Disconnection between speech and behavior
- Ethical contradiction (~25%)
- Human rights and discriminatory laws in Oman
- Luxury image (~15%)
- 5-star hotel, opposition to the “rich”
🛡️ Lines of Defense
- Céline Vara: “private” matter (1, 5, 13)
- Young Greens: distinction between systemic struggle and individual behavior
📌 Conclusion
The controversy reveals a tension between individual freedom and public exemplarity, especially when it comes to ecological political leaders. It more broadly raises the question of consistency between discourse and practices, particularly on the climate front (3, 11).
Charts
Sounds interesting ?
