Publication summary
11% 35 analyzed articles/videos 9,325 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Tribune results contain 46 faulty reasoning types, including Biased Writer Voice , Negativity Bias , and Appeal to Emotion , with Halo Effect as the most egregious example at 8.4% saturation with 3,772 hits . Analysis detected 33,078 faulty-reasoning hits from 45,168 analyzed words across 35 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.6% and a BS Rank of 38% (255 of 410 publications). This Chicago Tribune is better (less manipulative) than 62.10% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 45,168
Article count: 35
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
38% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 37.9% percentile 1.6% BS Score35 analyzed articles45.2K 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 5.6% 5.6% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 6.2% 6.2% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 5.8% 5.8% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 2.9% 2.9% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.7% 0.7% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.3% 2.3% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 3.9% 3.9% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 3.3% 3.3% Overconfidence Bias Sitewide 4.6% Publication 0.8% 0.8% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Publication 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: Publication 5.6%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 6.2%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 5.8%, sitewide 15.9% Appeal to Authority: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 3.9%, sitewide 9.1% Halo Effect: Publication 8.3%, sitewide 6.7% Hasty Generalization: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 8.1% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 7.7%, sitewide 5.3% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.3%, sitewide 7.5% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.7%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Publication 2.9%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.8%, sitewide 3.7% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 3.1%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 1.4%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 1.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.6%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Politically Left Leaning Bias: Publication 0.1%, sitewide 2.0% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst