Publication summary
61% 17 analyzed articles/videos 11,497 analyzed words
BS Summary: These Chicago Reader results contain 49 faulty reasoning types, including Halo Effect , Negativity Bias , and Hasty Generalization , with Biased Writer Voice as the most egregious example at 12.2% saturation with 5,285 hits . Analysis detected 29,977 faulty-reasoning hits from 43,417 analyzed words across 17 articles, generating a BS Score of 1.4% and a BS Rank of 27% (302 of 410 publications). This Chicago Reader is better (less manipulative) than 73.60% of the peer group. Publication details
Total words: 43,417
Article count: 17
Authors
Ranking context Position among analyzed publications
26% percentile 0 25 50 75 100 26.4% percentile 1.4% BS Score17 analyzed articles43.4K 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 3.3% 3.3% Negativity Bias Sitewide 19.2% Publication 4.9% 4.9% Appeal to Emotion Sitewide 15.9% Publication 3.7% 3.7% Appeal to Authority Sitewide 11.1% Publication 1.3% 1.3% Biased Writer Voice Sitewide 5.3% Publication 12.2% 12.2% Availability Heuristic Sitewide 9.1% Publication 2.5% 2.5% In-Group Bias Sitewide 6.9% Publication 0.9% 0.9% Confirmation Bias Sitewide 7.5% Publication 2.0% 2.0% Anchoring Bias Sitewide 4.0% Publication 0.3% 0.3% Hasty Generalization Sitewide 8.1% Publication 4.6% 4.6% 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: Publication 3.3%, sitewide 26.9% Negativity Bias: Publication 4.9%, sitewide 19.2% Appeal to Emotion: Publication 3.7%, sitewide 15.9% Biased Writer Voice: Publication 12.2%, sitewide 5.3% Appeal to Authority: Publication 1.3%, sitewide 11.1% Availability Heuristic: Publication 2.5%, sitewide 9.1% Hasty Generalization: Publication 4.6%, sitewide 8.1% Confirmation Bias: Publication 2.0%, sitewide 7.5% Halo Effect: Publication 6.9%, sitewide 6.7% In-Group Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 6.9% Optimism Bias: Publication 3.0%, sitewide 6.0% Anecdotal: Publication 2.1%, sitewide 5.2% Overconfidence Bias: Publication 1.6%, sitewide 4.6% Anchoring Bias: Publication 0.3%, sitewide 4.0% Self-Serving Bias: Publication 0.9%, sitewide 3.7% Attempt to Sell a Product or Service: Publication 3.5%, sitewide 0.5% Post Hoc (False Cause): Publication 1.1%, sitewide 3.3% Out-Group Homogeneity Bias: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 3.1% Fundamental Attribution Error: Publication 1.1%, sitewide 2.7% Recency Bias: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.7% Loss Aversion: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.5% Bandwagon: Publication 0.4%, sitewide 2.2% Status Quo Bias: Publication 0.5%, sitewide 2.2% Ad Hominem: Publication 0.2%, sitewide 2.2% Framing Effect Sitewide rate Publication rate Analyzed articles and videos Sort by Most recent Article rank - best Article rank - worst