Mary McNamara 6%

By Mary McNamara0%

5/7/2013, 8:31:00 AM

BS Summary: This article contains 2 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 28.6% saturation with 24 hits. Analysis detected 48 faulty-reasoning hits from 84 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 21.4% and a BS Rank of 6% (20,713 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 94.60% of the article peer group.

Mary McNamara is a culture columnist and critic for the Los Angeles Times. 
Previously she was assistant managing editor for arts and entertainment following a 12-year stint as television critic and senior culture editor. 
A Pulitzer Prize winner in 2015 and finalist for criticism in 2013 and 2014, she has won various awards for criticism and feature writing. 
She is the author of the Hollywood mysteries “Oscar Season” and “The Starlet.” 
She lives in La Crescenta with her husband and two dogs. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.5%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.9%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.5%Framing Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 3.6%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 7.8%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.6%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 28.6%Mary McNamara: 21.4%Daily Pilot: 5.1%Halo Effect28.6%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Straw Man0.0%This article: 28.6%Mary McNamara: 14.3%Daily Pilot: 4.9%Appeal to Authority28.6%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.2%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.4%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.0%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 5.7%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.7%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.6%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.4%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 2.8%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.3%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.8%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 6.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 1.5%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.9%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 0.3%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Mary McNamara: 0.0%Daily Pilot: 4.0%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

84 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker100%attributed speech0writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Mary McNamara • 2 words • 0.0% coverageMary McNamara • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMary McNamara • 21 words • 0.0% coverageMary McNamara • 24 words • 0.0% coverageMary McNamara • 13 words • 0.0% coverageMary McNamara • 11 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

Mary McNamara

29%flagged-word coverage
84 attributed words100% of attributed speech0% writer coverage

No manipulation-pattern hits were found in this speaker's attributed words or the writer's voice.

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.