CNBC⁠54%

Halftime Report Podcast ⁠83%

7/29/2020, 12:13:44 AM

Keywords: Apple Inc

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Emotion, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 50% saturation with 35 hits. Analysis detected 203 faulty-reasoning hits from 70 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 74.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠83% (3,697 of 21,145 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 82.50% of the article peer group.

Follow and Listen Apple Podcasts Spotify Amazon Music TuneIn iHeartRadio About The Halftime Report Podcast "Halftime Report" is on the front lines of CNBC's market coverage. 
CNBC's Scott Wapner and the Street's top investors get to the heart of the action as it's happening and help set the agenda for the rest of the day. 
"Halftime Report" airs weekdays 12-1PM ET on CNBC TV. 
Halftime Report Disclaimer 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CNBC: 4.5%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.8%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 3.2%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.5%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 37.1%CNBC: 6.8%Framing Effect37.1%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 41.4%CNBC: 7.5%Optimism Bias41.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 6.6%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.8%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 41.4%CNBC: 3.0%Halo Effect41.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 37.1%CNBC: 4.9%Appeal to Authority37.1%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 4.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 41.4%CNBC: 2.5%Appeal to Emotion41.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 3.3%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.2%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 2.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.1%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 41.4%CNBC: 3.6%Biased Writer Voice41.4%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 1.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CNBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 50.0%CNBC: 5.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…50.0%

70 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker41%attributed speech41writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageScott Wapner • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Scott Wapner

100%flagged-word coverage
29 attributed words100% of attributed speech85% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Scott Wapner: 100.0%100.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -85.4 ptsWriter: 85.4%Scott Wapner: 0.0%0.0%

Attribution is sentence-level. Pattern percentages are calculated only from words assigned to that voice.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

Hover over highlighted words in the article to view the associated bias or fallacy analysis.