Publication summary
48% 10 analyzed articles/videos 5,078 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Austin Chronicle results contain 47 faulty reasoning types, including Negativity Bias , Halo Effect , and Appeal to Emotion , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 10.3% saturation with 2,644 hits . Analysis detected 19,226 faulty-reasoning hits from 25,707 analyzed words across 10 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 36% (256 of 398 publications). This Austin Chronicle is better (less manipulative) than 64.20% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 25,707
Article count: 10
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
36% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 35.8% percentile 1.6% BS Score10 analyzed articles25.7K 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% Publication 3.9% 3.9% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 6.5% 6.5% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 4.2% 4.2% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.6% 2.6% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.0% 2.0% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 1.1% 1.1% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Publication 10.3% 10.3% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.9% 2.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.6% 3.6% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 1.1% 1.1% 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: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 6.5%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 4.2%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.6%, sitewide 11.1% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 10.3%, sitewide 5.3% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 6.9% Halo Effect: Publication 5.5%, sitewide 6.7% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 3.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.9%, sitewide 3.3% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 2.0% Unattributed Quote: Publication 1.9%, sitewide 1.1% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst