Mark Z. Barabak ⁠13%

By Mark Z. Barabak⁠96%

3/20/2014, 7:56:00 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 3 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority and Attempt to Sell a Product or Service, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 57.3% saturation with 43 hits. Analysis detected 79 faulty-reasoning hits from 75 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 29.2% and a BS Rank of ⁠13% (18,593 of 21,145 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 87.90% of the article peer group.

Mark Z. 
Barabak is a political columnist for the Los Angeles Times, focusing on California and the West. 
He has covered campaigns and elections in 49 of the 50 states, including 13 presidential contests and scores of mayoral, legislative, gubernatorial and congressional races. 
He also reported from the White House and Capitol Hill during the George H.W. 
Bush and Clinton administrations. 
Follow him on Bluesky at markzbarabak.bsky.social and on X at markzbarabak. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 3.3%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 5.1%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.2%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 8.5%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.1%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 29.4%Daily Pilot: 7.7%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 5.8%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.7%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 57.3%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.9%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect57.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.8%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.9%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 5.3%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.6%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 33.3%Mark Z. Barabak: 4.0%Daily Pilot: 5.0%Appeal to Authority33.3%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 9.4%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.3%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 10.2%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.5%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.8%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 5.9%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.2%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.1%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.9%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.7%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 1.6%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 27.4%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 3.5%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 2.4%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 14.7%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.3%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…14.7%

75 words analyzed.

Speakers

2speakers79%attributed speech16writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 2 words • 0.0% coverageLos Angeles Times • 16 words • 0.0% coverageMark Z. Barabak • 25 words • 0.0% coverageMark Z. Barabak • 14 words • 0.0% coverageMark Z. Barabak • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 11 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mark Z. Barabak

100%flagged-word coverage
43 attributed words73% of attributed speech69% writer coverage
0%35.0%70.0%Attempt to Sell a Product -68.8 ptsWriter: 68.8%Mark Z. Barabak: 0.0%0.0%

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

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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