WIRED⁠16%

History Professor Answers Corruption Questions ⁠81%

By Condé Nast⁠0%

7/7/2026, 2:14:34 PM

BS Summary: This article contains 12 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Authority, Availability Heuristic, and False Dilemma, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 47.5% saturation with 29 hits. Analysis detected 161 faulty-reasoning hits from 61 analyzed words, generating a BS Score of 72.5% and a BS Rank of ⁠81% (4,209 of 21,886 articles). This article is worse (more manipulative) than 80.80% of the article peer group.

Professor and scholar in fascism and authoritarianism Ruth Ben-Ghiat joins WIRED to answer the internet’s burning questions about dictatorships, corrupt governments and kleptocracy. 
Which country is the most corrupt in the world? 
How do corrupt dictators hide their money? 
Is Trump the most corrupt president? 
Answers to these questions and many more await on Corruption Support. 
Article reasoning-pattern comparisonThis article: 9.8%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 1.9%Confirmation Bias9.8%This article: 14.8%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.7%Anchoring Bias14.8%This article: 37.7%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 2.9%Availability Heuristic37.7%This article: 14.8%Condé Nast: 0.8%WIRED: 0.8%Representativeness Heuristic14.8%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.9%Hindsight Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.2%Overconfidence Bias0.0%This article: 47.5%Condé Nast: 3.4%WIRED: 4.3%Framing Effect47.5%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.4%Loss Aversion0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.5%Status Quo Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Sunk Cost Effect0.0%This article: 18.0%Condé Nast: 1.3%WIRED: 2.1%Optimism Bias18.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.4%Pessimism Bias0.0%This article: 11.5%Condé Nast: 4.9%WIRED: 5.9%Negativity Bias11.5%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 1.2%Self-Serving Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.7%WIRED: 0.8%Fundamental Attribution Error0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Actor-Observer Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 1.0%In-Group Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.5%WIRED: 1.9%Halo Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Horn Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Dunning-Kruger Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 1.0%Recency Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.3%Primacy Effect0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Blind-Spot Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.4%Ad Hominem0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.2%Straw Man0.0%This article: 45.9%Condé Nast: 2.2%WIRED: 3.2%Appeal to Authority45.9%This article: 24.6%Condé Nast: 1.2%WIRED: 1.1%False Dilemma24.6%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.5%WIRED: 0.5%Slippery Slope0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.2%Circular Reasoning0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 5.6%WIRED: 4.5%Hasty Generalization0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Red Herring0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.4%Bandwagon0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.6%WIRED: 2.9%Appeal to Emotion0.0%This article: 9.8%Condé Nast: 0.3%WIRED: 0.3%Begging the Question9.8%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 2.5%Post Hoc (False Cause)0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.0%Tu Quoque0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.3%Burden of Proof0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.1%Appeal to Nature0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.1%WIRED: 0.3%Composition/Division0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.1%WIRED: 3.6%Anecdotal0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%No True Scotsman0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 1.6%WIRED: 1.4%Ambiguity (Equivocation)0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Gambler’s Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Middle Ground0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.2%WIRED: 0.1%Personal Incredulity0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Special Pleading0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.1%Genetic Fallacy0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.4%WIRED: 1.2%Unattributed Quote0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.6%WIRED: 0.6%Quote-first Misdirection0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 2.3%WIRED: 4.0%Biased Writer Voice0.0%This article: 11.5%Condé Nast: 0.7%WIRED: 1.0%Indoctrination11.5%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.9%WIRED: 0.4%Politically Left Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 0.0%Condé Nast: 0.0%WIRED: 0.0%Politically Right Leaning Bias0.0%This article: 18.0%Condé Nast: 2.7%WIRED: 2.2%Attempt to Sell a Product or S…18.0%

61 words analyzed.

Speakers

No attributed speakers were identified in this analysis.

Loading…
Loading…
Loading…
Loading…

Analysis

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