Author summary
40% 5 analyzed articles/videos 6,934 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Guardian staff reporter results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Biased Writer Voice , and Appeal to Emotion , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 9.8% saturation with 2,430 hits . Analysis detected 15,711 faulty-reasoning hits from 24,690 analyzed words across 5 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 9% (5,833 of 6,364 authors). This Guardian staff reporter is better (less manipulative) than 91.70% of the peer group. Guardian staff reporter
Author details
Total words: 24,690
Article count: 5
Publications
Ranking context Position among analyzed authors
8% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 8.3% percentile 1.4% BS Score5 analyzed articles24.7K 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 2.2% 2.2% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Author 6.3% 6.3% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Author 4.3% 4.3% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Author 1.4% 1.4% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Author 2.3% 2.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Author 0.9% 0.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Author 0.9% 0.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Author 3.0% 3.0% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Author 0.6% 0.6% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Author 0.2% 0.2% 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 2.2%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Author 6.3%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Author 4.3%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Author 1.4%, sitewide 11.1% Halo Effect: Author 9.8%, sitewide 6.7% Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Author 3.0%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Author 0.9%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Author 3.5%, sitewide 6.0% Biased Writer Voice: Author 5.2%, sitewide 5.3% Anecdotal: Author 1.5%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Author 0.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 1.4%, sitewide 3.3% Hindsight Bias: Author 3.2%, sitewide 1.4% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Author 0.8%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Author 0.1%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Author 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Author rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst