Ad choices ⁠1%

By Washington Post staff⁠16%

8/7/2025, 4:37:41 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Status Quo Bias as the most egregious example at 20% saturation with 15 hits. Analysis detected 17 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 7.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠1% (21,666 of 21,886 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 99.00% of the article peer group.

Published September 16, 2016 
Online advertising for washingtonpost.com is delivered by the vendor DoubleClick. 
DoubleClick places cookies on your browser to facilitate serving particular ads – for instance, to help determine whether you have seen a particular advertisement before, to tailor ads to you if you have visited our site before, and to avoid sending you duplicate advertisements. 
You can opt out of DoubleClick’s use of cookies for these purposes by visiting http://www.google.com/intl/en/privacy/. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 3.8%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.2%The Washington Post: 4.9%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.4%The Washington Post: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.7%The Washington Post: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 8.7%The Washington Post: 21.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 2.1%The Washington Post: 0.8%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 20.0%Washington Post staff: 1.1%The Washington Post: 0.9%Status Quo Bias20.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 2.8%The Washington Post: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.2%The Washington Post: 3.6%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.3%The Washington Post: 18.5%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 1.5%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.6%The Washington Post: 2.2%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.8%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.2%The Washington Post: 2.1%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.4%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 2.4%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.6%The Washington Post: 5.2%Appeal to Authority0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.3%The Washington Post: 1.5%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 1.1%The Washington Post: 5.9%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.6%The Washington Post: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.5%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.5%The Washington Post: 6.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.0%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.2%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.9%The Washington Post: 0.6%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 1.9%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 3.1%The Washington Post: 2.7%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.1%The Washington Post: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 4.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 2.5%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 3.4%The Washington Post: 15.2%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 8.7%The Washington Post: 2.0%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.0%The Washington Post: 3.6%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Washington Post staff: 0.7%The Washington Post: 1.4%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 2.7%Washington Post staff: 5.6%The Washington Post: 1.5%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…2.7%

75 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker92%attributed speech6writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 4 words • 0.0% coverageDoubleClick • 10 words • 0.0% coverageDoubleClick • 44 words • 0.0% coverageDoubleClick • 15 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

DoubleClick

22%flagged-word coverage
69 attributed words100% of attributed speech33% writer coverage
0%17.5%35.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -33.3 ptsWriter: 33.3%DoubleClick: 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.