8 men indicted on conspiracy charges over planned attack on White House, UFC event 32%

9/20/2016, 2:00:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 13 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Availability Heuristic, and Negativity Bias, with Appeal to Authority as the most egregious example at 35.6% saturation with 77 hits. Analysis detected 443 faulty-reasoning hits from 216 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 40.9% and a BS Rank of 32% (15,020 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 68.60% of the article peer group.

Eight men have been indicted on conspiracy charges for allegedly plotting to attack a UFC event in Philadelphia and potentially targeting the White House, according to federal prosecutors. 
The indictment, unsealed Tuesday in U.S. 
District Court in Philadelphia, charges the men with conspiracy to provide material support to terrorists and conspiracy to use weapons of mass destruction. 
Prosecutors say the men, identified as members of the so-called "Ansar al-Khilafah" group, were inspired by the Islamic State and planned to carry out attacks in the U.S. 
The group allegedly discussed attacking the UFC event, which was scheduled to take place in Philadelphia on Sept. 17, 2016, as well as targeting the White House and other government buildings. 
Authorities said the men were arrested in various locations across the country in late August 2016. 
"These individuals were allegedly motivated by a violent extremist ideology and were actively planning attacks on American soil," said U.S. 
Attorney Zane Memeger in a statement. 
"The indictment demonstrates our commitment to disrupting and preventing terrorist plots before they can be carried out." 
The investigation involved multiple federal agencies, including the FBI and the Department of Homeland Security. 
If convicted, the men face a maximum sentence of life in prison. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%PBS News: 14.2%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.5%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 31.9%PBS News: 4.7%Availability Heuristic31.9%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.9%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.4%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 8.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 33.8%PBS News: 23.3%Framing Effect33.8%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 7.9%PBS News: 0.3%Optimism Bias7.9%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.2%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 21.3%PBS News: 11.9%Negativity Bias21.3%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.1%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 10.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 13.0%PBS News: 4.7%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias13.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 3.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.6%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 7.4%PBS News: 2.4%Primacy Effect7.4%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.1%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.6%Straw Man0.0%This article: 35.6%PBS News: 13.9%Appeal to Authority35.6%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 1.7%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 1.0%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 9.3%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 2.0%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 9.3%PBS News: 12.9%Appeal to Emotion9.3%This article: 7.9%PBS News: 2.0%Begging the Question7.9%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 1.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.6%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.2%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.6%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.0%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 9.3%PBS News: 3.4%Unattributed Quote9.3%This article: 9.3%PBS News: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection9.3%This article: 10.6%PBS News: 2.6%Biased Writer Voice10.6%This article: 7.9%PBS News: 0.3%Indoctrination7.9%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 4.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 3.9%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%PBS News: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

216 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker11%attributed speech193writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 14 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 6 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 31 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 16 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 20 words • 100.0% coverageZane Memeger • 6 words • 0.0% coverageZane Memeger • 17 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 12 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Zane Memeger

100%flagged-word coverage
23 attributed words100% of attributed speech97% writer coverage
0%37.5%75.0%Indoctrination+73.9 ptsWriter: 0.0%Zane Memeger: 73.9%73.9%Biased Writer Voice-11.9 ptsWriter: 11.9%Zane Memeger: 0.0%0.0%Unattributed Quote-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Zane Memeger: 0.0%0.0%Quote-first Misdirection-10.4 ptsWriter: 10.4%Zane Memeger: 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.