FactCheck.org Wins Sigma Delta Chi Award for Fact-Checking 1%

By FactCheck.org1%

7/13/2026, 4:28:27 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 17 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect, Confirmation Bias, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 40.9% saturation with 117 hits. Analysis detected 576 faulty-reasoning hits from 286 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 6.3% and a BS Rank of 1% (20,285 of 20,452 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.20% of the article peer group.

FactCheck.org has won the 2025 Sigma Delta Chi award for fact-checking from the Society of Professional Journalists. 
This is our fourth win in the fact-checking category and our fifth award from SPJ overall. 
Our winning entry of three stories by Senior Writer D’Angelo Gore and Deputy Director Robert Farley provided fact-checks about several of President Donald Trump’s tariff claims. 
Among the claims examined were the misleading calculations used for “reciprocal tariffs” the president sought to impose on nations around the world, the misleading justification for higher tariffs on imports of European goods, and the repeated, false insistence that the tariffs would be paid by other countries and not American consumers. 
“Judges said calling out deliberate falsehoods and misstatements is increasingly important in journalism,” SPJ said during the virtual awards ceremony on July 9. 
“Here, [the president’s] tariff numbers and statements have been carefully analyzed with the facts clearly presented. 
Important work, well done.” 
Previously, FactCheck.org won the 2019 , 2020 and 2023 Sigma Delta Chi fact-checking awards. 
We also won a 2010 SDX non-deadline reporting award for independent news sites for our work on deceptive claims made about federal health care legislation. 
The Society of Professional Journalists, originally founded as Sigma Delta Chi, has been honoring outstanding journalism since 1932. 
Editor’s note: FactCheck.org does not accept advertising. 
We rely on grants and individual donations from people like you. 
Please consider a donation. 
Credit card donations may be made through our “Donate” page . 
If you prefer to give by check, send to: FactCheck.org, Annenberg Public Policy Center, P.O. 
Box 58100, Philadelphia, PA 19102. 
The post FactCheck.org Wins Sigma Delta Chi Award for Fact-Checking appeared first on FactCheck.org . 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 17.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 2.1%Confirmation Bias17.8%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.4%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 2.0%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 5.2%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Loss Aversion5.2%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.4%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 14.3%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect14.3%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 17.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 4.3%Negativity Bias17.8%This article: 2.4%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Self-Serving Bias2.4%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 24.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Halo Effect24.8%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 5.6%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Recency Bias5.6%This article: 4.9%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Primacy Effect4.9%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 40.9%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 4.9%Appeal to Authority40.9%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 3.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 5.6%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Bandwagon5.6%This article: 3.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion3.8%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.0%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 17.8%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.1%Ambiguity (Equivocation)17.8%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.2%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 2.4%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Special Pleading2.4%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 8.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.4%Unattributed Quote8.0%This article: 5.6%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.2%Quote-first Misdirection5.6%This article: 8.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 1.2%Biased Writer Voice8.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.9%FactCheck.org: 0.1%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.0%FactCheck.org: 0.6%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 16.1%FactCheck.org: 5.4%FactCheck.org: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…16.1%

286 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker15%attributed speech243writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 8 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 17 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 26 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 51 words • 0.0% coverageSociety of Professional Journalists • 23 words • 100.0% coverageSociety of Professional Journalists • 16 words • 100.0% coverageSociety of Professional Journalists • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 18 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words100% of attributed speech91% writer coverage
0%27.5%55.0%Unattributed Quote+53.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Society of Professional Journalists: 53.5%53.5%Biased Writer Voice+53.5 ptsWriter: 0.0%Society of Professional Journalists: 53.5%53.5%Quote-first Misdirection+37.2 ptsWriter: 0.0%Society of Professional Journalists: 37.2%37.2%Attempt to Sell a Product -18.9 ptsWriter: 18.9%Society of Professional Journalists: 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.