BS Summary: This article contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Appeal to Authority, and Appeal to Emotion, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 54.8% saturation with 261 hits. Analysis detected 1,550 faulty-reasoning hits from 476 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 34.7% and a BS Rank of 20% (16,974 of 21,230 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 80.00% of the article peer group.

The Markup’s collaborative investigation “Dating App Cover-Up: How Tinder, Hinge, and Their Corporate Owner Keep Rape Under Wraps” has won in the Society for Advancing Business Editing and Writing’s 2025 Best in Business Awards. 
The story was produced in partnership with the Pulitzer Center’s AI Accountability Network and was copublished with The Guardian and The 19th. 
Judges said that the collaborative investigation “draws readers into the dark hole of dating apps’ safety practices, along with how the industry’s dominant player turned a blind eye to the predators roaming its products. 
With urgency and moral clarity, reporters Emily Elena Dugdale and Hanisha Harjani shine a light on how an investor-pressured Match Group concealed accusations of sexual violence on its dating platforms.” 
The Markup previously won four SABEW awards in the 2022 Best in Business Awards. 
The most recent investigation is based on a review of hundreds of pages of internal company documents, thousands of pages of court records and securities filings, and dozens of interviews with company insiders and sexual violence survivors. 
In it, reporters Emily Elena Dugdale and Hanisha Harjani reveal that the Match Group, the world’s largest dating app company, had known about violence on its apps for years and failed to disclose that information with the public. 
The investigation centers on a Denver cardiologist, who was sentenced to 158 years in prison after being convicted of drugging and/or sexually assaulting 11 women. 
We found Match Group was aware of his behavior for years  and yet he remained on its apps, swiping and assaulting. 
Innovative product testing, led by statistical journalist Natasha Uzcátegui-Liggett, found banned Tinder users, including those reported for sexual assault, can easily rejoin or move to another Match Group dating app, all while keeping most key personal information the same. 
Ten months after the investigation, Uzcátegui-Liggett checked if the accounts created by The Markup in February, which had the same name, birthday, and profile photos of banned accounts, had been eventually banned by Match Group or its moderation systems. 
Every account checked was still in good standing. 
The reporting team overcame many obstacles. 
Survivors were reluctant to speak, potential whistleblowers cited NDAs. 
In Colorado, a district court judge sought to prevent us from accessing critical records—including testimony from police officers and Tinder and Hinge messages read in open court. 
In December, six women who were attacked by the cardiologist filed a lawsuit, accusing Match Group of “accommodating rapists across its products” through “negligence” and a “defective” product. 
The 54-page complaint extensively cites our investigation. 
In California, state lawmakers said they are preparing legislation to reform the industry. 
On Feb. 
20, 2026, Democratic state senator Caroline Menjivar introduced a bill that would require dating apps to conduct criminal background checks for California users. 
Congratulations to all of this year’s SABEW Awards honorees. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 1.7%The Markup: 2.1%The Markup: 2.2%Confirmation Bias1.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 8.2%The Markup: 2.8%The Markup: 2.8%Availability Heuristic8.2%This article: 13.4%The Markup: 1.8%The Markup: 0.7%Representativeness Heuristic13.4%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 1.0%The Markup: 0.2%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 2.1%The Markup: 1.7%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 19.3%The Markup: 7.5%The Markup: 3.2%Framing Effect19.3%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 2.7%The Markup: 1.8%The Markup: 2.1%Optimism Bias2.7%This article: 4.6%The Markup: 0.6%The Markup: 0.7%Pessimism Bias4.6%This article: 33.8%The Markup: 10.3%The Markup: 6.5%Negativity Bias33.8%This article: 1.5%The Markup: 1.3%The Markup: 0.7%Self-Serving Bias1.5%This article: 8.0%The Markup: 1.0%The Markup: 0.6%Fundamental Attribution Error8.0%This article: 5.7%The Markup: 0.7%The Markup: 0.1%Actor-Observer Bias5.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.5%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 16.8%The Markup: 10.1%The Markup: 2.5%Halo Effect16.8%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 7.1%The Markup: 2.2%The Markup: 1.1%Recency Bias7.1%This article: 2.9%The Markup: 0.4%The Markup: 0.1%Primacy Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Straw Man0.0%This article: 31.9%The Markup: 7.5%The Markup: 3.8%Appeal to Authority31.9%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 1.5%The Markup: 0.2%The Markup: 0.0%Circular Reasoning1.5%This article: 8.2%The Markup: 1.5%The Markup: 3.9%Hasty Generalization8.2%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 1.9%The Markup: 1.5%The Markup: 0.4%Bandwagon1.9%This article: 29.6%The Markup: 7.2%The Markup: 3.3%Appeal to Emotion29.6%This article: 14.3%The Markup: 1.9%The Markup: 0.5%Begging the Question14.3%This article: 4.6%The Markup: 2.7%The Markup: 1.7%Post Hoc (False Cause)4.6%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 8.4%The Markup: 3.5%The Markup: 3.0%Anecdotal8.4%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 14.7%The Markup: 1.9%The Markup: 1.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)14.7%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 14.9%The Markup: 3.8%The Markup: 0.6%Unattributed Quote14.9%This article: 13.0%The Markup: 3.4%The Markup: 1.0%Quote-first Misdirection13.0%This article: 54.8%The Markup: 12.9%The Markup: 2.3%Biased Writer Voice54.8%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 1.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.3%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%The Markup: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 1.9%The Markup: 2.0%The Markup: 1.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…1.9%

476 words analyzed.

Speakers

3speakers36%attributed speech307writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 10 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 34 words • 100.0% coverageEmily Elena Dugdale • 30 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 14 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 37 words • 0.0% coverageEmily Elena Dugdale • 38 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 25 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 100.0% coverageNatasha Uzcátegui-Liggett • 39 words • 0.0% coverageNatasha Uzcátegui-Liggett • 39 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 8 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 27 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 7 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 13 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageCaroline Menjivar • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 9 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Emily Elena Dugdale

100%flagged-word coverage
68 attributed words40% of attributed speech87% writer coverage
0%50.0%100.0%Biased Writer Voice+37.1 ptsWriter: 62.9%Emily Elena Dugdale: 100.0%100.0%Unattributed Quote-23.1 ptsWriter: 23.1%Emily Elena Dugdale: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-20.2 ptsWriter: 20.2%Emily Elena Dugdale: 0.0%0.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -2.9 ptsWriter: 2.9%Emily Elena Dugdale: 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.