Author summary
⁠88%1 analyzed article/video1,438 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Melinda Haas results contain 32 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias, Hasty Generalization, and Appeal to Authority, with Framing Effect as the most egregious example at 26.4% saturation with 1,138 hits. Analysis detected 5,000 faulty-reasoning hits from 4,314 analyzed words across 1 article, generating a BS Score of 3.6% and a BS Rank of ⁠71% (1,909 of 6,382 authors). This Melinda Haas is worse (more manipulative) than 70.10% of the peer group.
Melinda Haas
Author ranking list
PercentileAuthorBS Score
⁠0%Vivek Chibber1%
⁠0%Sneha Dey1%
⁠0%Ideastream Public Media1%
⁠0%Megan Fan Munce1%
⁠1%Los Angeles Times staff1%
⁠71%Melinda Haas (selected)4%
⁠100%Greg Rosenstein38%
⁠100%Siham Shamalakh43%
⁠100%Greg Miller54%
⁠100%Kevin Kniestedt60%
⁠100%Bill Radke60%
Author details
Total words: 4,314
Article count: 1
Publications

Ranking context

Position among analyzed authors

70% percentile
025507510070.1% percentile
3.6% BS Score1 analyzed articles4.3K analyzed words

Reasoning profile

Selected profile versus the sitewide rate

AuthorSitewideShared scale 0–25%
0.0%5%10%15%20%25%Appeal to EmotionSitewide 15.9%Author 2.7%2.7%Negativity BiasSitewide 19.2%Author 9.9%9.9%Availability HeuristicSitewide 9.1%Author 2.3%2.3%Confirmation BiasSitewide 7.5%Author 1.0%1.0%Quote-first MisdirectionSitewide 0.0%Author 6.4%6.4%Optimism BiasSitewide 6.0%Author 0.5%0.5%Ambiguity (Equivocation)Sitewide 0.8%Author 5.6%5.6%Politically Left Leaning …Sitewide 2.0%Author 6.1%6.1%Overconfidence BiasSitewide 4.6%Author 1.0%1.0%Appeal to AuthoritySitewide 11.1%Author 7.6%7.6%

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 26.4%, sitewide 26.9%Negativity Bias: Author 9.9%, sitewide 19.2%Appeal to Emotion: Author 2.7%, sitewide 15.9%Appeal to Authority: Author 7.6%, sitewide 11.1%Availability Heuristic: Author 2.3%, sitewide 9.1%Hasty Generalization: Author 8.5%, sitewide 8.1%Confirmation Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 7.5%Quote-first Misdirection: Author 6.4%, sitewide 0.0%Politically Left Leaning Bias: Author 6.1%, sitewide 2.0%Optimism Bias: Author 0.5%, sitewide 6.0%Ambiguity (Equivocation): Author 5.6%, sitewide 0.8%Post Hoc (False Cause): Author 5.5%, sitewide 3.3%Biased Writer Voice: Author 2.9%, sitewide 5.3%Anecdotal: Author 3.2%, sitewide 5.2%Pessimism Bias: Author 5.2%, sitewide 1.9%Overconfidence Bias: Author 1.0%, sitewide 4.6%Slippery Slope: Author 4.3%, sitewide 1.7%Anchoring Bias: Author 0.8%, sitewide 4.0%Unattributed Quote: Author 3.6%, sitewide 1.1%Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 3.1%Fundamental Attribution Error: Author 0.7%, sitewide 2.7%Recency Bias: Author 0.3%, sitewide 2.7%Status Quo Bias: Author 1.1%, sitewide 2.2%Ad Hominem: Author 0.5%, sitewide 2.2%Framing EffectSitewide rateAuthor rate

Analyzed articles and videos