Author summary
12% 2 analyzed articles/videos 1,517 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chalkbeat Detroit results contain 24 faulty reasoning types, including In-Group Bias , Confirmation Bias , and Loss Aversion , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 13.5% saturation with 821 hits . Analysis detected 1,779 faulty-reasoning hits from 6,068 analyzed words across 2 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.2% and a BS Rank of 11% (7,397 of 8,264 authors). This Chalkbeat Detroit is better (less manipulative) than 89.50% of the peer group. Chalkbeat Detroit
Author details
Total words: 6,068
Article count: 2
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
11% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 10.5% percentile 1.2% BS Score2 analyzed articles6.1K analyzed words
Reasoning profile Selected profile versus the sitewide rate
Highest rates Largest gaps
Shared scale 0–50%
0.0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% Framing Effect Sitewide 26.9% Author 1.1% 1.1% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 0.9% 0.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 0.8% 0.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 0.4% 0.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 0.8% 0.8% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 0.3% 0.3% Halo Effect Sitewide 6.7% Author 13.5% 13.5% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 1.5% 1.5% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Author 0.3% 0.3% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 1.9% 1.9% Sitewide departure map Above the diagonal means this profile uses the pattern more often
0.0% 0.0% 10% 10% 20% 20% 30% 30% 40% 40% 50% 50% Framing Effect: Author 1.1%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 0.8%, sitewide 15.9% Halo Effect: Author 13.5%, sitewide 6.7% Appeal to Authority: Author 0.4%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Author 0.8%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 0.3%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 1.5%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 0.3%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 0.4%, sitewide 5.2% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 4.0% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 0.7%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 1.3%, sitewide 2.5% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Pessimism Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 1.9% Begging the Question: Author 0.6%, sitewide 1.7% False Dilemma: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.5% Unattributed Quote: Author 0.4%, sitewide 1.1% Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 0.9%, sitewide 0.8% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Author 0.1%, sitewide 0.5% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst