What the Internet Reveals About China’s Next-Generation Fighter Jets ⁠14%

By Sam Roggeveen⁠0% David Vallance⁠0%

7/9/2026, 9:01:06 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 35 faulty reasoning types, including Hasty Generalization, Appeal to Authority, and Availability Heuristic, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 16.3% saturation with 389 hits. Analysis detected 3,271 faulty-reasoning hits from 2,385 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 30.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠14% (18,875 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 86.20% of the article peer group.

Why We Know More About China’s Next-Generation Fighters Than America’s 
As internet sleuthing replaces traditional intelligence collection, one big mystery about the PLA remains. 
By Sam Roggeveen , director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute, and David Vallance , a research associate in the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute. 
Representatives from Hong Kong University view a prototype of the domestic J-10A fighter jet at the Beijing Aviation Museum at Beihang University in Beijing, China, on June 1. 
Representatives from Hong Kong University view a prototype of the domestic J-10A fighter jet at the Beijing Aviation Museum at Beihang University in Beijing, China, on June 1. 
Hou Yu/China News Service/VCG via Getty Images 
July 10, 2026, 12:01 AM 
China’s test of a submarine-launched ballistic missile on July 6 took many by surprise. 
But amid the confusion about what the test signified, an interesting conversation was occurring. 
Was the missile a JL-2 or a JL-3? 
That open-source analysts were asking this question is a testament to just how much technical information about the People’s Liberation Army is now available to researchers. 
The Cold War is often invoked as a comparison to U.S.-China relations today, but the massive Soviet military machine had to be monitored through a much darker and blurrier lens than China’s buildup. 
The old ways of intelligence collection have not been entirely superseded; astonishingly, modern versions of the U-2 spy planes that undertook perilous reconnaissance missions over the Soviet Union still serve with the U.S. 
Air Force. 
But traditional tools of intelligence collection on foreign military forces are now being heavily supplemented by sources that are freely available on the internet. 
Intelligence collection and analysis were once the exclusive purview of governments and research institutions. 
But the information revolution has produced a flourishing of open-source intelligence and a global community of military analysts. 
Their sleuthing is transforming our understanding of the biggest military modernization of any nation since World War II. 
Beijing naturally likes to show off its military prowess, unveiling new technologies with fanfare. 
Last year’s military parade marking the 80th anniversary of the end of World War II, for instance, was a gold mine for analysts . 
Sometimes these official releases reveal more than intended. 
Videos put out by the People’s Liberation Army (PLA) are parsed for minute details. 
Even a glimpse of background can be revealing, allowing for quick geolocation of the footage, which can hint at where new military equipment is based. 
Despite the so-called “Great Firewall,” information emerges from unofficial sources on the Chinese internet as well. 
Shanghai’s naval shipyard is routinely photographed by passengers onboard passing airliners, revealing details of new ship designs. 
One such photo revealed that China’s next aircraft carrier is likely to be nuclear powered because two square voids built into the hull closely resemble reactor containment vessels . 
A driver passing by an airfield recently took dashcam footage of a highly classified new fighter jet as it landed. 
We currently know more about China’s next-generation fighter ambitions than we do about the United States’ because numerous images of two Chinese prototypes have appeared online. 
Meanwhile, the United States’ F-47 remains shrouded in mystery . 
That these images are posted online suggests that the firewall is not entirely secure. 
But there is likely to be some collusion going on, too, with Chinese authorities turning a blind eye to these unofficial releases because they recognize their propaganda value. 
After all, the influencers who spread these images are often motivated by nationalism, a desire to show off their nation’s progress. 
There are clearly limits, however. 
Chinese social media military enthusiasts often practice self-censorship, blurring aircraft serial numbers and other sensitive details in the photos that they post. 
Published scientific papers continue to reveal new areas of research with military applications. 
But another major new source of open-source intelligence is satellite photos. 
As launching and operating commercial satellites has become cheaper and the quality of imagery that they produce has improved, “geospatial” intelligence has ceased to be the purview of governments alone. 
Companies including PlanetLabs, Vantor, and BlackSky provide a tasked satellite service for those who can afford it, while the U.S. 
Geological Survey’s EarthExplorer provides a free service updated by NASA’s Landsat program. 
Open-source satellite photos have allowed civilian researchers to track construction of everything from Chinese aircraft carriers to missile silos to China’s massive new military headquarters outside Beijing. 
It’s not only China that wants to manipulate the information environment. 
The increasing capability of open-source intelligence offers opportunities for the United States, too. 
When media outlets, think tanks, or independent analysts reveal commercial satellite photos of previously unknown Chinese bases or weapons, it is wise to consider the possibility that the U.S. government has offered them some clues about where to look. 
The boom in open-source intelligence on the PLA has broadened the spectrum of organizations and individuals making use of it. 
Some of the most valuable work is being done by specialists in U.S. research organizations such the Rand Corporation, China Aerospace Studies Institute , James Martin Center for Nonproliferation Studies , and China Maritime Studies Institute . 
Independent analysts such as Rick Joe , Andreas Rupprecht , and Alex Luck also parse the wealth of satellite information from Chinese shipyards and bases to examine the fine detail of its military expansion. 
This ecosystem is a great illustration of how knowledge and expertise proliferate in the digital age. 
The internet has had many unintended consequences, and largely thanks to social media, the effects of the information revolution are now viewed with skepticism. 
But PLA watching is one area where the internet works largely as its early pioneers intended. 
It certainly has its share of propaganda and misinformation, but it also breaks down analytic silos and democratizes expertise by weakening the hold of gatekeepers who previously shut out specialists lacking formal credentials. 
While PLA watchers have access to information about military platforms that would have made their predecessors working on the Soviet military envious, they do not have the same open and ready access to doctrinal, strategic, or logistical information. 
Researchers wanting to understand American thinking about such issues have no shortage of specialist publications available to them—from the Journal of Advanced Military Studies to the Army Lawyer . 
There are far fewer such publications available to China researchers, a major blind spot in the study of the PLA. 
That’s why many of the advances in PLA open-source analysis have centered on assessing its capabilities—but not so much its intentions, which are harder to divine. 
Here we can draw on a classic distinction between puzzles and mysteries. 
The first is a problem with a definitive answer that can be unearthed with new information, while the latter has no definitive answer and additional information may not bring more certainty. 
An example of a puzzle would be, “How many bombers does China have?” 
whereas a mystery is, “What does China plan to do with them?” 
Russia’s full-scale offensive against Ukraine illustrates how clarity about capabilities does not always help to improve decision-making. 
Despite clear evidence and warnings from the United States’ intelligence community, some Ukrainians and much of Europe refused to believe that Russia would invade. 
As a result, Moscow still achieved surprise. 
This should be a sobering lesson for security authorities in Asia. 
We know a great deal about China’s capabilities to invade Taiwan . 
Beijing cannot disguise the rapid expansion of its short-range rocket and missile arsenal, and there is clear evidence that it plans to use civilian ferries in an invasion. 
Last year, we even saw photos of a fleet of mobile barges , which would allow China to put large numbers of heavy vehicles ashore over a beach. 
Moreover, invading Taiwan would require months of preparation, including the prepositioning of a vast array of assets. 
In the present information environment, this would be impossible for China to hide, yet as Russia’s invasion of Ukraine demonstrated, this doesn’t necessarily translate to certainty about its objectives. 
The task of understanding China’s intentions is not only more difficult than assessing its capabilities, but also more urgent. 
Capabilities can take decades to build and can therefore be studied in detail and at a certain leisure. 
A nation’s intentions, on the other hand, can change suddenly. 
To understand what a state might do with its military assets, it is useful to understand what those assets can do. 
For instance, although China’s military is heavily focused on Taiwan, it is also building a fleet of ships and aircraft more suited to long-range power projection than to a cross-strait conflict—aircraft carriers and cruisers, large replenishment and amphibious assault ships, long-range bombers, and more. 
While these platforms would certainly have their uses in a Taiwan contingency, they are better suited to operations much farther afield. 
China long ago abandoned Mao Zedong’s ambitions to foment communist revolution abroad. 
But the country’s military capabilities nevertheless point to ambitions beyond self-defense. 
In analyzing the military intentions of any foreign power, it is wise to follow Walter Gropius’s approach to architecture: Form follows function. 
Recently, we published a report on the implications of China’s military modernization for the defense of Australia. 
We argued that China’s long-range strike capability is robust and growing. 
We deliberately avoided saying what China might do with this capability, but nonetheless, our report provoked a stern reaction from the Chinese Foreign Ministry, which, according to the Global Times , argued that the report “tries to interpret China through the trite pattern that a great power is bound to seek hegemony.” 
This, Times reported, was a “grave strategic miscalculation.” 
Whether deliberately or otherwise, China confused capability with intent. 
Our paper focused narrowly on how China could use force against Australia and said nothing about why it would ever do so. 
Whether one is hawkish or dovish about China, alarmist or complacent, this is important work. 
Good policy is built on a bedrock of facts. 
The intelligence analysts, think tankers, academics, and enthusiasts watching China’s rise as a military power all recognize the importance of this task but also understand its limitations for knowing what Beijing plans to do with its newfound power. 
So if Beijing really does feel misunderstood, if it is so concerned about its intentions being interpreted correctly, then perhaps it could be a little more open about them. 
To quote China’s ambassador to Australia, Xiao Qian, “Rumours cease when people are truly well-informed.” 
Sam Roggeveen is director of the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute and author of The Echidna Strategy: Australia’s Search for Power and Peace. 
David Vallance is a research associate in the International Security Program at the Lowy Institute. 
A rocket is seen from a great distance, flying through a deep blue sky during military drills. 
Several parallel plumes of smoke are seen alongside the rocket's path. 
Missile Defense Worked Against Iran. 
It Might Not Work Against China. 
The ongoing war has revealed vulnerabilities that could prove far more dangerous in a conflict over Taiwan. 
Ukraine Finally Has a Theory of Victory. 
Will It Work? 
Marco Rubio Burned Down the House to Fix a Sink 
How Ukraine Figured Out Trump World 
Evacuating Art From Ukraine’s Front Lines 
'A Rich Harvest of Bitter Fruit' Review: Stephen Long on the CIA's First Failed Coup 
New International Fiction Reviews: Stephanie Soileau's 'Should the Waters Take Us'; Priya Guns's 'Hustle, Baby' 
'The Yahoo Boys' Shows Nigeria’s Scammers Are Still People 
Negotiators from the United States, Canada, and five European countries converse after finishing the draft of the North Atlantic Treaty in Washington on March 18, 1949. 
Trans-Atlanticism Isn’t Dead—It’s Being Renegotiated 
Alexandra de Hoop Scheffer 
An illustration of a vintage-style map featuring North America and parts of Europe and Africa. 
Overlaid on the map are 3D red brick walls shaped exactly like the borders of the contiguous United States and Alaska, casting long shadows to the right. 
America, the Once Global Nation 
A painting depicts Roosevelt on horseback, his right hand raising a sword in the air as he leads a cavalry charge of other U.S. soldiers on horseback. 
The horses' eyes are wide and bulging with fear, and there are scattered starbursts around the scene indicating artillery fire. 
How to Spin an Empire 
An illustration showing a pair of hands tightly wringing out an American flag. 
Water droplets shaped like missiles squeeze out of the twisted fabric and fall toward a puddle shaped like the map of Iran on a red background. 
U.S. 
Power Is Wrung Out 
A creative illustration against a pale yellow background showing a garden planter containing a dense green hedge. 
Five human arms emerge from the hedge, with four of the hands holding small flags of China, Russia, the United States, and the European Union, while the fifth hand holds the flag of India. 
Hedging Is the New Normal 
Republican presidential nominee, former President Donald Trump pumps his fist as he walks off stage at the end of a campaign rally at the Santander Arena on November 04, 2024 in Reading, Pennsylvania. 
The End of America’s Soft Power 
Central Military Commission Vice Chairman Zhang Shengmin raises his right hand in a salute to Chinese President Xi Jinping, who is walking a level lower in a red-carpeted auditorium. 
The Deeper Pattern Behind China’s Military Purges 
An aerial photo shows Doha in the booming petrostate of Qatar. 
For What AI Could Do to Democracies, Look to the Petrostates 
Zelensky and Rutte walk beside one another. 
Rutte is smiling and gesturing in a welcoming manner toward Zelensky. 
Why This Year’s NATO Summit Is Different for Ukraine 
Ukraine’s ambassador to the United States breaks it down in a new interview. 
Billboards with the slogans “Key to Peace,” “Key to Security,” and “Shared Future in Peace”, displayed along the boulevard on the protocol route ahead of the NATO Summit in Ankara, on 26 June. 
Can NATO Pull Off a Dull Summit? 
German Chancellor Friedrich Merz, France's President Emmanuel Macron, and British Prime Minister Keir Starmer at the start of the E-3 meeting during the 62nd Munich Security Conference on February 13, 2026 in Munich, Germany. 
Europe Is Struggling to Lead NATO 
A pharmacy sign displays the temperature of 44 degrees Celsius in Brussels. 
NATO’s New Enemy Is the Thermometer 
Ukraine’s New Momentum? 
The CIA’s First Failed Coup 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 4.5%Sam Roggeveen: 3.2%Foreign Policy: 3.4%Confirmation Bias4.5%This article: 0.3%Sam Roggeveen: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Anchoring Bias0.3%This article: 8.8%Sam Roggeveen: 3.0%Foreign Policy: 2.6%Availability Heuristic8.8%This article: 5.4%Sam Roggeveen: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic5.4%This article: 1.9%Sam Roggeveen: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Hindsight Bias1.9%This article: 4.0%Sam Roggeveen: 2.5%Foreign Policy: 2.3%Overconfidence Bias4.0%This article: 2.4%Sam Roggeveen: 2.3%Foreign Policy: 5.0%Framing Effect2.4%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 1.3%Sam Roggeveen: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Status Quo Bias1.3%This article: 1.3%Sam Roggeveen: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect1.3%This article: 6.4%Sam Roggeveen: 2.6%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Optimism Bias6.4%This article: 3.7%Sam Roggeveen: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Pessimism Bias3.7%This article: 5.2%Sam Roggeveen: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 7.9%Negativity Bias5.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 4.2%Sam Roggeveen: 1.9%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Fundamental Attribution Error4.2%This article: 1.5%Sam Roggeveen: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias1.5%This article: 1.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.7%In-Group Bias1.6%This article: 1.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias1.6%This article: 1.9%Sam Roggeveen: 0.5%Foreign Policy: 1.7%Halo Effect1.9%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Recency Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.8%Sam Roggeveen: 0.2%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.8%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 10.1%Sam Roggeveen: 3.5%Foreign Policy: 2.9%Appeal to Authority10.1%This article: 3.1%Sam Roggeveen: 1.1%Foreign Policy: 1.7%False Dilemma3.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 1.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 15.5%Sam Roggeveen: 7.2%Foreign Policy: 4.9%Hasty Generalization15.5%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 2.4%Sam Roggeveen: 0.6%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Bandwagon2.4%This article: 5.1%Sam Roggeveen: 1.3%Foreign Policy: 2.7%Appeal to Emotion5.1%This article: 3.2%Sam Roggeveen: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 0.8%Begging the Question3.2%This article: 4.1%Sam Roggeveen: 1.0%Foreign Policy: 3.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.1%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 1.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.4%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Burden of Proof1.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 3.6%Sam Roggeveen: 1.6%Foreign Policy: 1.2%Anecdotal3.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 4.6%Sam Roggeveen: 1.1%Foreign Policy: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)4.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 1.2%Sam Roggeveen: 0.3%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Special Pleading1.2%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 3.1%Sam Roggeveen: 0.8%Foreign Policy: 1.8%Unattributed Quote3.1%This article: 0.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.7%Foreign Policy: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection0.6%This article: 16.3%Sam Roggeveen: 4.4%Foreign Policy: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice16.3%This article: 4.6%Sam Roggeveen: 1.2%Foreign Policy: 1.1%Indoctrination4.6%This article: 0.6%Sam Roggeveen: 0.1%Foreign Policy: 0.7%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.6%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Sam Roggeveen: 0.0%Foreign Policy: 0.4%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

2385 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker0.6%attributed speech2,370writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 24 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 44 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageXiao Qian • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 3 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Xiao Qian

100%flagged-word coverage
15 attributed words100% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Quote-first Misdirection+100.0 ptsWriter: 0.0%Xiao Qian: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote+97.5 ptsWriter: 2.5%Xiao Qian: 100.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice-16.4 ptsWriter: 16.4%Xiao Qian: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Xiao Qian: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-0.6 ptsWriter: 0.6%Xiao Qian: 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.