KQED⁠61%

Science Friday | KQED ⁠25%

6/27/2026, 6:19:42 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 4 faulty reasoning types, including Framing Effect, Halo Effect, and Appeal to Authority, with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 75% saturation with 57 hits. Analysis detected 142 faulty-reasoning hits from 76 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 37.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠25% (16,416 of 21,887 articles). This article is better (less manipulative) than 75.00% of the article peer group.

Science Friday is a weekly science talk show, broadcast live over public radio stations nationwide. 
Each week, the show focuses on science topics that are in the news and tries to bring an educated, balanced discussion to bear on the scientific issues at hand. 
Panels of expert guests join host Ira Flatow, a veteran science journalist, to discuss science and to take questions from listeners during the call-in portion of the program. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Confirmation Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.0%Availability Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.5%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 38.2%CalMatters: 6.3%Framing Effect38.2%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.0%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.5%Optimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 6.4%Negativity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.7%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 36.8%CalMatters: 2.7%Halo Effect36.8%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.9%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 36.8%CalMatters: 3.1%Appeal to Authority36.8%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.1%False Dilemma0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.6%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 5.3%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.6%Begging the Question0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 2.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.2%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.8%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.7%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 75.0%CalMatters: 3.1%Biased Writer Voice75.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.9%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.1%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 0.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%CalMatters: 1.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

76 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker5.3%attributed speech72writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
KQED • 4 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 29 words • 100.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 100.0% coverage
Selected voice

KQED

0%flagged-word coverage
4 attributed words100% of attributed speech79% writer coverage
0%40.0%80.0%Biased Writer Voice-79.2 ptsWriter: 79.2%KQED: 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.