CBC⁠49%

Meet 'the fastest gay on Earth' ⁠49%

By CBC Docs⁠0%

10/23/2024, 9:16:11 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 7 faulty reasoning types, including Anecdotal, Framing Effect, and Unattributed Quote, with Out-Group Homogeneity Bias as the most egregious example at 21.7% saturation with 40 hits. Analysis detected 153 faulty-reasoning hits from 184 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 49.8% and a BS Rank of ⁠49% (11,181 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 51.10% of the article peer group.

Meet Travis Shumake: a professional drag racer who has been called "the fastest gay on Earth." 
He drives a Top Fuel dragster in the National Hot Rod Association. 
"I grew up wanting to be a professional racecar driver," Shumake tells Timothy Caulfield — a misinformation expert and educator — in the documentary Harder Better Faster Stronger. 
Shumake's father, Tripp Shumake, was a racecar driver too. 
"When one thinks of racing, especially drag racing, you think hyper-male traditional masculinity. 
Is that a fair stereotype?" 
Caulfield asked. 
"Very much so," Shumake confirmed. 
It's that very perception of the sport that made Shumake buy his own race team after his former team's owner said, "No more rainbow parachutes. 
Let's just stick to racing," 
Despite being considered an "outlier" in the male-dominated sport, Shumake is excited to continue a family legacy, and to show the world of drag racing just "how many of these big, macho guys can't wait to be on Team Travis." 
How to watch Harder Better Faster Stronger 
Watch now on CBC Gem and the CBC Docs YouTube channel. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 6.0%CBC: 2.6%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.7%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.8%CBC: 3.1%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 7.1%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 1.1%Representativeness Heuristic7.1%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 1.0%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.8%CBC: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 12.0%CBC Docs: 9.0%CBC: 4.2%Framing Effect12.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 0.6%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.0%CBC: 0.6%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.5%CBC: 4.0%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.4%CBC: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 11.3%CBC: 5.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.0%CBC: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 1.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 21.7%CBC Docs: 0.5%CBC: 0.3%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias21.7%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 3.6%CBC: 3.6%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 1.2%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.4%CBC: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 5.4%CBC: 3.7%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.1%CBC: 0.4%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 5.0%CBC: 4.8%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.1%CBC: 0.6%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 8.0%CBC: 4.2%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.7%CBC: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.3%CBC: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.9%CBC: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.6%CBC: 0.3%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 21.7%CBC Docs: 5.1%CBC: 3.3%Anecdotal21.7%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 2.3%CBC: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.3%CBC: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.2%CBC: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 11.4%CBC Docs: 1.3%CBC: 1.1%Unattributed Quote11.4%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.9%CBC: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 3.3%CBC Docs: 5.3%CBC: 4.8%Biased Writer Voice3.3%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.8%CBC: 2.4%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 1.3%CBC: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CBC Docs: 0.0%CBC: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 6.0%CBC Docs: 4.0%CBC: 1.7%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…6.0%

184 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers29%attributed speech131writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverageTravis Shumake • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageTimothy Caulfield • 13 words • 0.0% coverageTimothy Caulfield • 5 words • 0.0% coverageTimothy Caulfield • 2 words • 0.0% coverageTravis Shumake • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 40 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Timothy Caulfield

65%flagged-word coverage
20 attributed words38% of attributed speech60% writer coverage
0%10.0%20.0%Unattributed Quote-16.0 ptsWriter: 16.0%Timothy Caulfield: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -8.4 ptsWriter: 8.4%Timothy Caulfield: 0.0%0.0%Biased Writer Voice-4.6 ptsWriter: 4.6%Timothy Caulfield: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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