BS Summary: This article contains 22 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Biased Writer Voice, and Framing Effect, with Ambiguity (Equivocation) as the most egregious example at 64.2% saturation with 199 hits. Analysis detected 1,452 faulty-reasoning hits from 310 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 84% and a BS Rank of 91% (2,150 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 90.20% of the article peer group.

It is impossible to revisit the American Revolution without raising the question: Did that late eighteenth-century conflict create a truly new kind of society, an “exceptional” nation that has ameliorated class conflict and sustained capitalist hegemony for more than 250 years? 
With Donald Trump in the White House and MAGA in power on so many fronts, has the idea of an “American exceptionalism,” which originated even before the colonials stacked their muskets, been finally reduced and debased to little more than a belief that Christian nationalism, white supremacy, and a robust, unfettered capitalism have become definitional identities after 250 years of American history? 
In his six-part documentary on the largely military history of the revolution, filmmaker Ken Burns sought to subvert such self-congratulatory chauvinism. 
A variegated set of scholars representing an expansive, twenty-first-century sense of what has constituted political and social history, offered a defiantly anti-Trumpian way of thinking about that 250-year-old upheaval. 
Multiple voices, among them those of indigenous people, enslaved African Americans, British loyalists, and “patriots” of various classes, genders, and regions gave to the Burns documentary a multisided complexity far removed from the textbook and TV tales of several decades ago or the one-dimensional revisionism coming out of the contemporary White House. 
Like so many anti-colonial movements of more recent years, the American Revolution was a civil war within a global context, where each fraction and party sought advantage either by resisting or allying with more dominant forces that may or may not have served as faithful compatriots. 
Indigenous Americans, well organized into a set of politically sophisticated and militarily engaged tribes, were clearly the greatest losers during and after the conflict, betrayed in almost equal measure by both the patriots and their British adversaries. 
Likewise, the British sought to entice enslaved Americans to their side with promises of eventual freedom. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 13.4%Jacobin: 5.8%Confirmation Bias6.8%This article: 13.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 6.6%Jacobin: 0.4%Anchoring Bias13.2%This article: 16.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 4.2%Jacobin: 2.6%Availability Heuristic16.8%This article: 14.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 3.7%Jacobin: 1.3%Representativeness Heuristic14.8%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 33.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 40.9%Jacobin: 6.8%Framing Effect33.2%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.5%Jacobin: 1.8%Pessimism Bias1.9%This article: 50.6%Nelson Lichtenstein: 23.6%Jacobin: 8.1%Negativity Bias50.6%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 9.4%Nelson Lichtenstein: 7.0%Jacobin: 2.0%In-Group Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 9.2%Jacobin: 1.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 4.2%Jacobin: 1.5%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 4.2%Jacobin: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 29.4%Nelson Lichtenstein: 7.3%Jacobin: 0.8%Recency Bias29.4%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.7%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 16.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 17.6%Jacobin: 1.3%Straw Man16.8%This article: 16.1%Nelson Lichtenstein: 9.8%Jacobin: 3.2%Appeal to Authority16.1%This article: 20.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 10.0%Jacobin: 2.7%False Dilemma20.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.2%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 26.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 35.6%Jacobin: 8.0%Hasty Generalization26.8%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 16.8%Nelson Lichtenstein: 9.2%Jacobin: 4.7%Appeal to Emotion16.8%This article: 13.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 11.6%Jacobin: 1.6%Begging the Question13.2%This article: 5.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 1.3%Jacobin: 3.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)5.2%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 11.9%Nelson Lichtenstein: 3.0%Jacobin: 0.6%Composition/Division11.9%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 2.5%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 64.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 16.0%Jacobin: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)64.2%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.5%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 1.4%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 20.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 5.0%Jacobin: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection20.0%This article: 38.7%Nelson Lichtenstein: 23.9%Jacobin: 11.2%Biased Writer Voice38.7%This article: 13.2%Nelson Lichtenstein: 3.3%Jacobin: 3.2%Indoctrination13.2%This article: 29.4%Nelson Lichtenstein: 51.2%Jacobin: 7.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias29.4%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Nelson Lichtenstein: 0.0%Jacobin: 0.3%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

310 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker6.8%attributed speech289writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 41 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 62 words • 100.0% coverageKen Burns • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 52 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 46 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Ken Burns

100%flagged-word coverage
21 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% writer coverage
0%22.5%45.0%Biased Writer Voice-41.5 ptsWriter: 41.5%Ken Burns: 0.0%0.0%Politically Left Leaning B-31.5 ptsWriter: 31.5%Ken Burns: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-21.5 ptsWriter: 21.5%Ken Burns: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-14.2 ptsWriter: 14.2%Ken Burns: 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.