STLPR0%

Top Instagram reels from Goats and Soda in 2025: Plumpy'Nut, aid cuts, soccer grannies0%

By Marc Silver0% Ben de la Cruz0%

12/26/2025, 7:37:29 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 18 faulty reasoning types, including Anchoring Bias, Availability Heuristic, and Representativeness Heuristic, with Anecdotal as the most egregious example at 48.6% saturation with 67 hits. Analysis detected 441 faulty-reasoning hits from 138 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 0% and a BS Rank of 0% (0 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 100.00% of the article peer group.

Instagram reels are reely ... er ... really popular. 
(Editor's note: It turns out that "reely" is really an alternate spelling for "really" from long ago  way before reels were invented.) 
Is there data to back this up? 
Mark Zuckerberg says so. 
The CEO of Meta, which owns Instagram as well as Facebook, reports that in 2025 reels have reached new heights on these platforms: 200 billion plays a day. 
NPR's global health and development blog was responsible for millions of those views. 
Here are our biggest Instagram reels this year. 
From left: Players celebrate during the grannies soccer tournament in South Africa. 
A Dalit kitchen in India. 
Plumpy'Nut bars manufactured at the Edesia Nutrition plant in Rhode Island. 
Mary Mayongana, 42, lost access to her HIV medicine as a result of U.S. aid cuts in Zambia. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 39.9%Marc Silver: 23.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.2%Anchoring Bias39.9%This article: 39.1%Marc Silver: 12.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.7%Availability Heuristic39.1%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 11.6%Marc Silver: 4.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Confirmation Bias11.6%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.0%Marc Silver: 15.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.3%Framing Effect13.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 2.9%Marc Silver: 9.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.4%Halo Effect2.9%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 9.4%Marc Silver: 6.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.2%In-Group Bias9.4%This article: 13.0%Marc Silver: 2.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.1%Loss Aversion13.0%This article: 13.0%Marc Silver: 13.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 7.1%Negativity Bias13.0%This article: 20.3%Marc Silver: 10.1%Belleville News-Democrat: 4.8%Optimism Bias20.3%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 5.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 3.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.4%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.9%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 4.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 5.8%Marc Silver: 10.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Recency Bias5.8%This article: 33.3%Marc Silver: 9.8%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic33.3%This article: 9.4%Marc Silver: 10.4%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.1%Self-Serving Bias9.4%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.0%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.5%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 7.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 48.6%Marc Silver: 19.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.6%Anecdotal48.6%This article: 23.2%Marc Silver: 26.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.6%Appeal to Authority23.2%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 4.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 6.6%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 6.5%Marc Silver: 14.3%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.7%Bandwagon6.5%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 1.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.8%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 5.1%Marc Silver: 1.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Burden of Proof5.1%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.6%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 1.3%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 12.3%Marc Silver: 5.2%Belleville News-Democrat: 3.7%Hasty Generalization12.3%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 13.0%Marc Silver: 8.7%Belleville News-Democrat: 2.1%Post Hoc (False Cause)13.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.9%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.4%Straw Man0.0%This article: 0.0%Marc Silver: 0.0%Belleville News-Democrat: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%

138 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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