Author summary
65%1 analyzed article/video598 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Melina Khan USA Today results contain 22 faulty reasoning types, including Appeal to Emotion, Appeal to Authority, and Negativity Bias, with Optimism Bias as the most egregious example at 7.7% saturation with 139 hits. Analysis detected 1,309 faulty-reasoning hits from 1,794 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.3% and a BS Rank of 66% (2,203 of 6,362 authors). This Melina Khan USA Today is worse (more manipulative) than 65.40% of the peer group.
Melina Khan USA Today
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
0%Vivek Chibber1%
0%Sneha Dey1%
0%Ideastream Public Media1%
0%Megan Fan Munce1%
1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
66%Melina Khan USA Today (selected)4%
100%Greg Rosenstein38%
100%Siham Shamalakh43%
100%Greg Miller54%
100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 1,794
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

65% percentile
025507510065.4% percentile
3.3% BS Score1 analyzed articles1.8K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–50%
0.0%10%20%30%40%50%Framing EffectSitewide 26.9%Author 5.6%5.6%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 6.1%6.1%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 7.5%7.5%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 3.8%3.8%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 3.0%3.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 7.0%7.0%Hasty GeneralizationSitewide 8.1%Author 5.0%5.0%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 1.6%1.6%Anchoring BiasSitewide 4.0%Author 1.6%1.6%Self-Serving BiasSitewide 3.7%Author 1.6%1.6%

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 5.6%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 6.1%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 7.5%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 7.0%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 3.8%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 5.0%, sitewide 8.1%Optimism Bias: Author 7.8%, sitewide 6.0%Confirmation Bias: Author 3.0%, sitewide 7.5%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 4.6%, sitewide 3.3%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.6%Anchoring Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 4.0%Status Quo Bias: Author 3.7%, sitewide 2.2%Self-Serving Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 3.7%Recency Bias: Author 2.4%, sitewide 2.7%Loss Aversion: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 2.1%, sitewide 0.8%Hindsight Bias: Author 1.9%, sitewide 1.4%Representativeness Heuristic: Author 1.5%, sitewide 1.9%Pessimism Bias: Author 1.6%, sitewide 1.9%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 1.8%, sitewide 0.0%Sunk Cost Effect: Author 1.4%, sitewide 0.3%Indoctrination: Author 0.7%, sitewide 0.0%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos