Akron Roundtable ⁠59%

9/21/2022, 8:53:32 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 8 faulty reasoning types, including Optimism Bias, Halo Effect, and Primacy Effect, with Attempt to Sell a Product or Service as the most egregious example at 55.6% saturation with 75 hits. Analysis detected 285 faulty-reasoning hits from 135 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 55.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠59% (8,980 of 21,887 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 59.00% of the article peer group.

Akron Roundtable inspires and promotes community dialog and networking by presenting speakers who inform and educate listeners on diverse topics of importance to the region, the nation and the world. 
Media production and distribution of the Signature speaker series is done through a unique collaboration involving Ideastream Public Media, PBS Western Reserve and the University of Akron's Media Studies program in partnership with the Akron Roundtable. 
Each episode of the Akron Roundtable Signature series will air on the first Sunday in the month following the roundtable at 2 PM on WVIZ (WVIZ 25.1) and The Ohio Channel (WVIZ 25.2). 
Ideastream Public Media will also continue its 8 PM radio broadcast on the first Thursday in the month following the roundtable on WKSU (89.7 FM). 
Click here to see who’s coming to Akron Roundtable. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 3.4%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 3.2%Optimism Bias22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.9%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 9.0%Halo Effect22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Primacy Effect22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 2.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.6%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 2.1%Appeal to Emotion22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 0.4%Anecdotal22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.2%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 5.4%Biased Writer Voice22.2%This article: 22.2%Ideastream Public Media: 4.2%Indoctrination22.2%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 55.6%Ideastream Public Media: 7.9%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…55.6%

135 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker19%attributed speech110writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 36 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 33 words • 0.0% coverageIdeastream Public Media • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
0%flagged-word coverage
25 attributed words100% of attributed speech68% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -68.2 ptsWriter: 68.2%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-27.3 ptsWriter: 27.3%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%0.0%Indoctrination-27.3 ptsWriter: 27.3%Ideastream Public Media: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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