NTD⁠100%

The story continues to reach audiences around the world. 🌍 ⁠100%

7/1/2026, 6:30:10 AM

Topics: Video
Keywords: Youtube

BS Summary: This video contains 26 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Halo Effect, and Burden of Proof, with Appeal to Emotion as the most egregious example at 42.7% saturation with 96 hits. Analysis detected 948 faulty-reasoning hits from 225 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 100% and a BS Rank of ⁠100% (196 of 21,886 videos). This video is worse (more manipulative) than 99.10% of the video peer group.

A new documentary is bringing attention to pressure a New York-based dance company faces from the Chinese Communist Party. 
In Taipei, Taiwan, a VIP screening and panel discussion was held for the film Unbroken: The Untold Story of Shen Yun. 
It's the latest stop on the film's global screenings, which has garnered praise and attention across North America and now Asia. 
>> Watching Shen Yun's performance, I was deeply moved by how their training is not only highly disciplined but also radiates beauty. 
>> The documentary follows Shen Yun performers and their families as they navigate threats, smear campaigns, and interference linked to the Chinese regime. 
Founded in New York in 2006, Shen Yun's mission is to revive traditional Chinese culture. 
The company tours globally with the tagline China before communism. 
>> It also helps the whole world understand just how extremely brutal the Chinese Communist Party's persecution of Falun Gong and a religion in mainland China really is. 
Everyone needs to unite even more strongly to support them. 
>> That we're facing defamation. 
What we have to do is use the same proper way of telling a good story for the audience. 
>> Despite the threats, Shen Yun continues expanding its global reach, committed to sharing traditional Chinese culture with audiences around the world. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 6.7%NTD: 15.6%Confirmation Bias6.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.9%Anchoring Bias0.0%This article: 21.8%NTD: 12.2%Availability Heuristic21.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.4%Representativeness Heuristic0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.8%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 8.4%NTD: 9.2%Overconfidence Bias8.4%This article: 16.9%NTD: 22.8%Framing Effect16.9%This article: 4.4%NTD: 1.9%Loss Aversion4.4%This article: 8.4%NTD: 2.0%Status Quo Bias8.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 23.6%NTD: 9.9%Optimism Bias23.6%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.8%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 32.4%NTD: 17.1%Negativity Bias32.4%This article: 2.2%NTD: 4.7%Self-Serving Bias2.2%This article: 20.9%NTD: 3.2%Fundamental Attribution Error20.9%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 4.4%NTD: 8.3%In-Group Bias4.4%This article: 10.2%NTD: 4.4%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias10.2%This article: 29.3%NTD: 6.7%Halo Effect29.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 13.3%NTD: 3.9%Recency Bias13.3%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.6%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 8.4%NTD: 14.1%Appeal to Authority8.4%This article: 11.1%NTD: 5.5%False Dilemma11.1%This article: 0.0%NTD: 3.3%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 8.4%NTD: 0.5%Circular Reasoning8.4%This article: 22.2%NTD: 17.3%Hasty Generalization22.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%Red Herring0.0%This article: 13.8%NTD: 2.7%Bandwagon13.8%This article: 42.7%NTD: 22.3%Appeal to Emotion42.7%This article: 23.1%NTD: 6.1%Begging the Question23.1%This article: 9.8%NTD: 5.0%Post Hoc (False Cause)9.8%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.3%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 29.3%NTD: 4.4%Burden of Proof29.3%This article: 10.2%NTD: 0.7%Appeal to Nature10.2%This article: 0.0%NTD: 1.4%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 28.4%NTD: 6.3%Anecdotal28.4%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.5%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 10.7%NTD: 4.6%Ambiguity (Equivocation)10.7%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.7%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.1%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.4%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 5.1%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 2.2%Indoctrination0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.2%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 4.1%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%NTD: 0.6%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…0.0%

225 words analyzed.

Speakers

1speaker9.8%attributed speech203writer words
Voice mapSelect a segment to jump to its words
Writer's voice • 9 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 1 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 21 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 22 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 23 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 15 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 28 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 10 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 5 words • 0.0% coverageWriter's voice • 19 words • 0.0% coverageorganization name • 22 words • 0.0% coverage
Selected voice

organization name

100%flagged-word coverage
22 attributed words100% of attributed speech100% 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.